the obama budget, the smallest deficit it reports over a 10-year period is about $750 billion. the republican study committee under the leadership of mr. jordan is the point of the spear that is lancing the out-of-control, reckless, federal deaf -- federal deficit spending that is bankrupting this country. this amendment complements what chairman rogers has done. we need to support it to put them in the best position when we have the negotiations with our friends in the other body. please vote for this necessary amendment. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from california and notre dame, mr. lungren from california, the former attorney general. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute.

mr. lungren: look, i stand before you as a conservative member of the republican study committee, former chairman of the republican study committee in strong opposition to this proposal. across the board cuts are lazy members' way to achieve something. this will cut 11% for the security of the congress. since the tragedy in tucson, i have had imnumerable members come to me as the chairman of house administration and asking me what more we can do for the security of this house, our members and our constituents. there is not a single member of this house who has asked me to cut security. quite the contrary. this would cut 250 officers, it would not allow me to do the things you have asked me to do

in terms of securing your offices here or at home. secondly, the greatest obligation we have here, i believe, is oversight of the federal government. so what does this amendment do? it cuts us twice as much as those who are supposed to follow. it makes no sense whatsoever. if you want us to do our job and be secure in our job, i would humbly ask you to defeat this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the gentleman's comments. i would take issue with saying any member of this house is lazy or that this is a lazy process. indeed it is not. as i said, 26 states have used across the board cuts to get their fiscal house in order. this government is overspent, we have to get it under control.

let's compliment what has been done by the appropriators and make things across the boort -- and make these across the board cuts. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. blackburn: i yield to the gentleman from south carolina. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. it's time to stop the spending insanity in this country. the american government knows the government is too large -- the american people know the government is too large. we're $14 trillion and $1.5 trillion in the red this year. it's got to stop. i'm part of an 87-member freshmen class that said, go back to the drawing board, give us $100 billion but don't stop there. don't zop there. we have hard decisionings to make in this body. everybody's got to row this boat if we're going to survive as an american government and we've got to stop and support this amendment and ask you to do so as well. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield one minute to the distinguished ranking member of the agriculture subcommittee, mr. farr from california.

the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. farr: thank you very much, madam chair, and thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to this amendment. we've been on a three-day marathon talking about how we're going to cut, squeeze, and trim the federal government. we haven't even hit the big stuff, 75% of the budget isn't even up for discussion here on the floor. what you're seeing with this amendment is you're taking a meat axe to essentially a bloody mess. we know this bill is going to end up not going anywhere because it doesn't really get into trying to do structural reform. if we wanted to deal with debt, you deal with a plan to get rid of debt, not just with a hacking and hacking away. let's device a plan that will really make this country deal with its debt just like you do with your mortgage, your long-term mortgage, a lot of money. people aren't scared as long as they have a job to how they're going to pay their mortgage because they have a plan. this amendment is a meat axe to bloody mess that ought to be opposed. the chair: the gentlelady from

tennessee. mrs. blackburn: reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from washington. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield one minute to the distinguished chairman of the agriculture subcommittee and a member of the defense subcommittee, mr. kingston of georgia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in opposition to this amendment and i do so as a proud r.s.c. member and somebody who fought us hard to get to $100 billion in this cut, who has pledged to work for more cuts in f.y. 2012. i support the goodlatte budget amendment and the spending cap but i got to say to my conservative friends, when you cut across the board, who do you think is going to be in charge of where these cuts come from? the e.p.a. director who is putting in the clean air and all of the greenhouse emission stuff? do you think she's going to cut that out of her budget? what about the department of justice? do you think they're going to take this out of the lawsuit money to arizona? what about the e.p.a. that came up with a law that dairy farmers

had to have an emergency response plan if they spilled milk because it was considered an oil? what about the immigration department? do you think they're going to back up this? you and i have some disagreements with the administration so i don't see why it helps us to empower them to make the decisions on where this 5% will come from. because i can say, if i was them, i know what i would cut and it would not be the priorities that you would. thank you. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, mr. soggetterland. the chair: the gentleman from florida ised -- southerland. the chair: the gentleman from florida voiced. mr. southerland: thank you, madam chair. i'd like to thank the gentlewoman from tennessee for yielding time this morning. i rise in support of the jordan amendment. you know, many people here have taken notice that many of us are freshmen. i'm a freshman and i'm proud of being a freshman. one thing i'm not a freshman at,

i'm not a freshman at trying to perpetuate my family's 55-year-old business that's struggling under the taxation and the regulation of this federal government. i'm not a freshman when it comes to that, i'm an expert, because that's what my dad did and what's it my granddad did and god willing, if this body practices currently and does what is right, my children and my grandchildren down the line will be able to continue and perpetuate that line of tradition. you know, i hear the word meat axe and draconian. what's draconian and meat axe is leaving every american in this country with $43,000 of national debt, $14 trillion of debt which puts us at a very weak standing among the world who owes -- owns now 50% of our debt. that is a security issue. people stand here and they talk about security. nothing is greater for our security than making sure that we own our debt rather than those countries around the world who mean us harm.

i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, where my uncle was the former mayor, mr. posey. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. mr. posey: thank you, madam speaker, and i thank my friend across the aisle for the time. i thathe thought the across the board cuts were not supposed to ply i -- apply to national security. i thought we were going to make cuts like the folks back home make cuts. if a family back home gets an across the board 5% cut and they apply it, they're in deep trouble. they might be able to cut back on their entertainment, they might be able to not go out to eat an extra night. they may be able to cut back on their water to or electric usage. but if they pay their mortgage company 5% less than its due for their security over their head, they're out on the street. and they end up in bigger problems than they started. so i think that's why we need to make these cuts surgically in our budget. let's take nasa, for example.

the committee already covers $300 million from the nasa budget. the weiner amendment cut $300 million more almost. why would anyone want to yield the ultimate military highground which is space to countries who in the very best of times are not friendly to us? space is the free world's goalen heights. i implore my colleagues to help defeat this very, very well-intended but misguided amendment. thank you very much. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. campbell. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. campbell: i thank the gentlelady from tennessee for yielding. you know, i came down here because i heard the opposition to this amendment decrying about the devastation that will occur to the country if this amendment were to pass and i'd like to make just two points. one, spending discretionary spending in this country has increased 38% in the last four years.

38%. as -- has american spending increased 38%? has american income increased 38%? no. all this government does -- amendment does is ask the government to spend what it spent two years ago. most americans would probably like to do that. why is that such a devastation? there's even a greater reason. we have a $1.5 trillion going to $1.6 trillion deficit if we don't get this debt under control. and fast. we will be making cuts of 50% overnight because of the debt crisis that will hit. when people stop buying our debt. madam speaker, this amendment does not threaten government services, it is actually a step toward saving them from the debt crisis that is ahead of us. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen, who is the chairman of the energy and water appropriations committee, a valued senior member of the defense committee.

mr. frelinghuysen: i'd like to associate myself with those who rise to to to owe this amendment basically because it's across the board. right now we are affecting the army corps of he can neers in a way that -- engineers in a way that will affect most of our major navigation around the country. mississippi, missouri, ohio river. we need to get these projects moving. they're important to commerce. billions of dollars of commerce, suppliers, producers. and, lastly, there's a national security aspect. we need to maintain the reliability of our nuclear stockpile. that's under the department. there's nothing more important than nuclear stockpile, protecting that stockpile, making sure it's reliable and that we meet the requirements of clean jups across the nation. -- cleanups across the nation. across the board cuts would impact that in a big way and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: how much time do we

have on both sides? the chair: the gentleman from washington has two minutes remaining and the gentlelady from tennessee has four 1/4 -- 4 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. dicks: i yield one minute to the chairman of the science, justice and -- commerce, justice and state. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. moran: thank you. i rise in opposition to the amendments. if we really want to -- >> if we -- mr. wolf: many -- medicare, medicaid and social security. that's where we have to go. secondly this really will result in the layoffs of several hundred f.b.i. agents at the f.b.i. we've met with director muller on friday. you can see the message when saddam hussein in a cave in pakistan hears that the f.b.i. has had a layoff of f.b.i. agents. clearly it would require lay jaufs of the d.e.a. lastly, for anybody interested

in nasa, and so many members came up to say, please, help nasa, this would result in a $1 billion cut of nasa and losses of thousands of jobs, not only to nasa employees, but also nasa contractors in alabama, in florida, in texas, in california and around the country. i urge defeat of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from tennessee. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. at this time i yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from ohio, the author of this amendment, mr. jordan. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is yielded the balance of their time which is 4 1/4. mr. jordan: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. madam speaker, let me start by thanking the appropriations committee. i do appreciate the work they have done. look, this is unprecedented. appropriators cutting tens of billions of dollars, getting the $100 billion that is so

important and what we told the voters we were going to do. i appreciate that. but i still am struck with this fact. one thing that the american people understand is spending is out of control. there is no way around it. and several speakers have went through and listed this program that would be impacted, this agency that would be impacted. look, i understand that. it's not pleasant to reduce spending, i get that. but i always bring it back to what the typical family has to do. think about the family out there who is making $50,000 a year and spending $85,000. there are some good things that that other $35,000 is being spent on. probably some very good things. maybe some things that are great for them, maybe they're going out to dinner and they have an entertainment night and they're doing healthy things for their family. but the point is they're spending more than they're taking in and they have to cut back. even if some of those things are positive things. and the federal government is even worse because we're taking in $50,000, spending $85,000 year after year after year and

the president's budget highlights that. we run trillion-dollar deficits for the next decade. we pile up more debt on top of the $14 trillion. this amendment builds on a good bill and simply says, let's get to a full $100 billion in savings outside of national defense in nonsecurity savings. we think that's a good first step toward putting this country on a path that is fought toly sustainable -- that is actually sustainable, toward at least reducing our deficit by 1/15. imagine that. just 1/15. this is what the american people sent us here to do, this is what the american people elected 87 freshmen republicans to do. this very thing. to reduce spending. sometimes the people of the country say it a lot better than the politicians. in my time in public life, i have never seen the american people more receptive to the

things that have to be done to fix this country. they get it. the central question is, will the political class demonstrate the same commitment, the same courage the american people have shown over the last year. let me read you this. this came to our office two days ago. representative jordan my research center receives the majority of its funding from federal department of education sources. if those are cut, we stand to lose our program and as a result maybe our livelihood. however, my greater concern is with the future of this nation. federal spending if not dramatically cut, will inevitably lead to this nation's ruin and will destroy all opportunities for our children. we must bring sanity back to the management of our nation's fiscal resources. jim, our forefathers pledged their lives, their fortune, and their sacred honor to create an exceptional nation where our rights are endowed by our creator.

if i have to sacrifice my livelihood to maintain this great experiment called america, it's the very least i can do in service to this country. please stand firm in your fight for fiscal responsibility to preserve this great nation. colleagues, that is the standard of the american people. that's commitment we have to meet. that's what this debate is all about. if we don't do this, the future for our kids and our grandkids is diminished. this is about making sure america remains the greatest country in history. i urge a yes vote on the amendment and yelled back our time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington. mr. dicks: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from idaho, mike simpson who has been ranking member on the interior and is now the chairman of the interior. mr. simpson: it's important to remember what we're doing here. we're dealing with a c.r. that funds the government for the last seven months. this is not a full-year appropriations bill. we're dealing with match shorter period of time.

the $100 billion we were asked to reduce in this budget, few if you looked at it, by the time this gets done would be about $200 billion if it were a full-year appropriations bill. the appropriations committee has done its job. it's done what our conference asked us to do. you know, we had actually had amendments on the floor. that would reduce some accounts to less than what they have in the appropriation process system of they would, i guess they'd be paying us. but some of the amendment have just gone too far. this one, i think, goes too far and as some have said, across the board cuts don't give us the opportunity to decide what our priorities are. what we need to do is make sure that we get this amendment defeated that we get this resolution, this c.r. to fund the government for the last seven months passed and then get on with doing a budget for 2012 which was not done last year and pass the appropriations bills so we can fund the government for the next year at a level that i

think many of the r.s.c. members will be happy with when we get that done. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the -- >> i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentlelady from texas, kay gringer. the chair: the gentleman may not yield blocks of time. the gentleman may yield but not blocks of time. the gentlelady from texas. ms. granger: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the jordan amendment this would cut an additional $.5 billion from the state foreign operations title of the c.r. after the subcommittee has brought significant and thoughtful cuts to the table. this title is already $10 billion below 2010, including supplementals. to achieve that, we put lower

priority programs on pause, reduced an eliminated underperforming, wasteful, and duplicative programs an zeroed out administrative priorities like climate change. the programs that are funded in the state foreign operations title of this bill protect our top national security priorities. the gentleman claims his amendment exempts national security but it does not exempt the national security provisions in the state foreign operations title. the jordan amendment reduces u.s. operations in frontline states including afghanistan and iraq. the subcommittee has tried to responsibly protect these funds from drastic reductions in the state foreign ops title, given that we have men and women in harm's way in our civilian forces just as we do in our military forces. aside from cutting $450 million from security assistance, the amendment would cut $55 million from the pakistan counterinsurgency capability

fund. israel is protected -- >> would the gentlelady yield to me for a second in ms. granger: i would like to yield to other members, you've done a very nice job and we appreciate your strong statement. i'd like to yield to the chairman of the transportation subcommittee, mr. latham from iowa. mr. latham: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i appreciate very much what's going on and the reduction of spending. i'm just very concerned that this is not really a thoughtful way of doing it, that if we're after waste, fraud, and abuse in our budget thinks going to cripple us farce finding out where those places are. it will continue to fund items, lines in the budget that have waste, fraud, and abuse and will not eliminate those. also when you look at just the transportation portion, i think the gentleman from

massachusetts, mr. olver brugget the point up too, but this would stop air crask -- air traffic control for a period of weeks and i don't think many of us here would like to see our airports closed down for several weeks because we don't have air traffic control. that's exactly what would happen. so i appreciate, thank you very much to the gentleman for yielding. mr. dicks: i yield to the gentlelady from missouri the chairman of the financial services appropriations subcommittee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. emerson: i want to echo the words of our colleagues in opposition to this bill. let me talk a little bit about two thing that in my bill, the financial services bill that would be drastically impacted. number one, an additional 5.5% cut totaling $1.02 billion would reduce assistance to small businesses, would hurt agencies that protect american citizens from deceptive business practices and fraud.

in addition to that, it would result in dangerous cuts to the treasury department's office of terrorism and financial intelligence, funding for enforcement of iran sanctions, judicial security and drug task porses. i realize it's a well-intentioned effort but it goes too far. i urge a no vote. i yield back. mr. dicks: madam chair, i yield to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, mr. moran, for -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: madam chairwoman, the c.r., i believe, is irresponsible. but this amendment would commit this country to an economic death spiral. it may sound like heresy but the reality is you can't run the strongest government and the strongest economy in the world on less than 15% of g.d.p. look back to the clinton years when we were at 20%. we had the strongest economy

ever. people at the top tax rates brought home more after tax income than any time in american history. we crea ated 23 million more jobs and had a surplus. that surplus is what we should be aiming for. not only do we need to cut spending, sure, but we also need to raze -- raise revenue and come to balance. this is an imbalanced amendment, it's an irresponsible one and our country and our people deserve better. thank you, madam chairwoman. mr. dicks: in closing, let me point out that the amendment to impose an across the board cut would allow the o.m.b. to make the funding decisions. we have spent four days and nights thoughtfully considering programs and levels, this amendment is not thoughtful and should be defeated. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee. those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. ms. plaque burn: madam speaker, recorded vote. the chair: the gentlelady from tennessee requests a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further pr seedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from tennessee will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk, 199. the chair: the clerk -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 199 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. poe of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, and a member opposed will each control -- >> i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's motion. the chair: five minutes. a point of worder -- order is reserve and the chair will recognize the gentleman from texas. mr. poe: i understand that point of order is reserved by the other side. this legislation, this amendment to the c.r. is very simple. arizona, the state of arizona

has implemented laws in its state to protect the dignity and sovereignty of the state. the united states federal government in all of its awesome power has jumped in and sued the state of arizona at taxpayer expense, preventing them from enforcing the rule of law in their own state. the federal government doesn't enforce the rule of law on the borders. recently, the g.a.o. reported that only 44% of the border is secure that means somebody else controls the other 56% of the southern border. and it's not the united states of america. arizona is trying to protect its people, the federal government won't protect the border but yet it sues the state of arizona. this legislation would prohibit the federal government from using its resources and any money to implement the lawsuit against the united states of america versus the state of arizona and janis brewer, the governor thereof. it's a very simple amendment. i yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from texas, mr. carter.

the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for four minutes. mr. carter: i thank my friend for yielding. i understand that a point of order has been raised. but this is serious business we're talking about here. the sovereign state of arizona is being overrun by dangerous people. there have been murders up and down that border. i've been to that border, i've seen the fence being built in arizona. i've seen the fence it replaced which wouldn't even hold in a pair of goats. and yet we have -- so what does the govern cror of that state do? steps forward and says the federal government is not meeting its obligation. we're going to protect our citizens. now one of the things i've been very concerned about -- i el will yield to my friend in a moment. one of the things i have been very concerned about as i've watched the judiciary and legal system develop is we've learned how to use our court system as

a battering ram against opponents, both our opponents in business and our -- now our opponents in politics and in other places. just to batter them into position. the united states government should not be battering the state of arizona into a position that the state believes is contrary to the will of the people. i will now yield to my friend. >> i want to thank my friend congressman carter for yielding. the problem i have is that two hours ago, three hours ago, there was great debate about the states who took on the federal government over a question of the constitutionality of the obamacare. everybody is happy because they agreed with the decision. in arizona, arizona decided to pass s.b. 1070. it went to federal court. mr. pastor: judge bolton decided some sections were

constitutional and some were unconstitutional. we're now going through the process of the ninth circuit and probably to the supreme court. so what's good for the goose is good for the grander. i would tell you, why don't you let the process occur and that way we'll know whether or not arizona has the power to do -- to deal with immigration and whether or not the states can deal with the issue of obamacare. i yield back. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i appreciate it. mr. carter: i yield what kime i have left back to judge poe. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. this issue is an issue of public safety which is the first only geags of the federal government. to protect the people. to protect the homeland. that is why it's porn that the federal government get out of the way of the state of arizona trying to protect the good citizens there in arizona from the drug cartels that are coming in to their state. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the plns of his time. does the gentleman continue to reserve his point of order?

mr. fattah: i continue to reserve. i concur with what congressman pastor said and i'd like to, before i insist on my point of order, yield to the gentleman from arizona for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. does the gentleman seek time in opposition? the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. grijalva: thank you. and thank you for extending time. my strong opposition to this amendment is because it would bar the department of justice or any other federal agency from challenging the constitutionality of this law in arizona or any other law. the precedent being set by this amendment, by the poe amendment, if it were to be adopted, would establish a dangerous, dangerous new standard. it opens the door to congressional restraints on active pending department of justice litigations, in a potentially endless variety of cases through backdoor defunding

moves. the president -- precedent being set here, and i appreciate the gentleman's point, but arizona working its will. there's also this people that believe in the constitution as we all do would want to know that the law in arizona passes constitutional muster. this is what this lawsuit's about, this is why we have separation of powers, this is why we have a constitution. to protect the interests of all people. s.b. 70, you can support it, i can oppose it. there is a third part of our government that will decide whether or not this law is constitutional and i believe all of us would like to uphold constitutional laws. thank you and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania continues to make his point of order. the gentleman will state his point of order. mr. fattah: i make a point of order against the amendment because it changes the -- proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of

rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general probation s bill snoot be in order if changing existing law. the chair: does any other member wish to speak to the point of order? mr. poe: speak in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. poe: the law does not legislate. in fact, it prohibits legislation. all it does is tell the department of justice they can't spend any money on this lawsuit. and i would accept the ruling of the chair. the chair: any other member wish to speak to the point of order? if not, the chair is prepared to rule. the chair finds that this amendment imposes new duties on the relevant federal official. by limiting funding for the continuation of the case -- of a case, the amendment would require the agencies to make a determination as to what constitutes continuation of a case. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21 and the point of order is sustained and the amendment is

not in order. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments precipitationed in the congressional record on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 50, ms. mccollum of minnesota, amendment number 232, mr. nadler of new york. amendment 214, mr. kline of minnesota. amendment number 11, mr. pence of indiana. amendment number 533, mr. young of alaska. amendment 524, mr. nadler of new

york. amendment 466, mr. poe of texas. amendment 575, mr. rehberg of montana. amendment 267, mr. kifpk iowa. amendment 268, mr. kifpk iowa. amendment 83, mrs. emerson of missouri. amendment 89, mr. king of wisconsin. amendment 88, mr. king of wisconsin. amendment 104, mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 50 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. mccollum on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 50 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. mccollum of minnesota. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having

arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote followed by a series of two-minute votes. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 148, the nays are 281. the amendment is not agreed to. the committee will be in order. will members please take their seats. the committee will be in order. will members please take their seats. the committee will be in order. will members please take their seats.

for what purpose does the majority leader rise? mr. cantor: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cantor: i will be brief. first of all, i want to thank chairman rogers and ranking member dicks and their incredible staff for the leadership and amazing endunce they have displayed the committee will be in order. the chair: the committee will be in order. mr. cantor: they, along with

the staff, the parliamentarian's office, the clerk's office, the congressional budget office, the sergeant at arm's offices, many leadership offices, members' offices and of course the capitol police have been working around the clock, literally, in order for us to facilitatehis debate. i thank all of the staff. now, madam speaker, we've had an traordinary debate and i want to thank the members for their patience, i want to thank members for their patience, their enthusiasm, their participation in this remarkable , remarkable development of events in this debate. i would say to members that all of us want to finish and complete this bill today.

madam speaker, i would say, as members know, we are operating under a unanimous consent agreement and under that agreement we still have 18 hours of debate and 103 amendments to go. now, while none of us want to restrict anyone's ability to speak their piece and voice their opinion, certainly a lot has been said throughout the last 80-some hours of discussion on this bill. so i would ask members to be mindful of the prudence of being concise and expeditious in their remarks and if we proceed in that vein, madam speaker, perhaps we could finish at a reasonable hour this evening and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

>> i'm sorry to do this to you, leader, just for a moment. mr. lewis: i recognize your recognizing mr. rogers and mr. dicks and others, our stafferers, their fabulous work, but i think it would be a shame if we didn't recognize a specific person who's essentially been mr. rogers' right hand during all of this discussion, he's leaving the house at the end of the month to go to the private sector, a fabulous, fabulous guy who is respected on both sides of the aisle, let's give jeff chucky a hand. i yield back. the chair: without objection, two-minute voting will continue. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 232 printed in the congressional record offered

by the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 232, printed in the congressional record offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captione coverage of the house proceedings for potical or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the chair: on this this 298, the nays are 331. this amendment is -- the chair: the amendment is not agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded ve on amendment number 214 printed in the congressional record offered by the gtleman from minnesota, mr. kline. on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the

amendment. the clerk: amendment number 21 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. kline of minnesota. the chair: a recorded vote han -- has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recoed vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s.ouse of

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 289, the nays are 136. onmember voting prent. this amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 11 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from indiana, mr. pence, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. e clerk: amendment number 11 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. pence of indiana. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united stas house of representatives. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. -- any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s.

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 240, the nays are 185. one member voting present. the amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 533 printed in the congressnal record offered by the gentleman from alaska, mr. young, on which further proceedings are postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesigte the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 533 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. young of alaska. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. sore support -- those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient numbehaving arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic vice. . th is a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning stitute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned covera othe house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 243, the nays are 185 this amendment is adopted. the unfished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 524, printed in the congressional record, offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, on which proceedings were further postponed and on which the nays prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 524, printed in the

congressionarecord, offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: those in support of the if for -- of the request for the recorded ve will rise and be counted. a a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: othis vote, the yeas are 196, the nays are 231, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 466 printed in the congressional record, offered by the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. on which further proceedings were postponed an on which the nays prevailed by a voice vote.

the clerk will redesignate the amendmen the clerk: amendment number 466 printed in the congrsional record, offered by mr. poe of texas. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be downed. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. fund 23u7bd [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 249, the nays are 175. this amendment is adopted.

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 249, the nays are 177, this amendment is agreed to. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 575 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from montana, mr. rehberg, on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amenent. the clerk: amendment number 575, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. rehberg of montana. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of a request for a recorded vote will rise and be downed. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by

the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 239, the naysre 187. this amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 267 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from iowa mr. king. on which further proceedings were postponed an on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 267 printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. king of yea. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. memberwill record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 241rk the nays are 187. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 268 printed in the congressional record, offered byhe gentleman from iowa, mr. king, on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 268 printed in the con fregsal record, fered by mr. kg of iowa. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states housef representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 237, the nays are 1. this amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 83 precipitationed in the congressional record offered by the gentlewoman from missouri, mrs. emerson, on which further proceedings were postpon and which the ayes spre veiled by voice vote. the clerk: amendment until 83 printed in the congressional recordffed by mrs. emerson of missouri. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly

prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on thisote the yeas are 246, the nays are 182, the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 89 printed in the congressional record offered by the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kind, which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 89 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. kind o wisconsin. the chai a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered.

members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, in, in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 183, the nays are 246. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 88 printed in the congressional record offed by the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. kind, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by a voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 88 printed in the congressional record offed by -- offered by

mr. kind of wisconsin. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any e of the closed-captioned covera of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 123, the nays are 306. the amendment is not adopted. thunfinished busins is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 104 printed in

the congressional record offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee, builds blackburn, on which further proceedings were postponed and object on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 104 printed in the congressional record offer by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 147, the nays are 281.

the chair: the committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i move to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: can i have everybody's attention, please. the chair: the committee will be in order. mr. dicks: could we have everybody's attention please. the chair: the committee will be in order. members will take their conversations from the floor. the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: today may well be the last day of a very

distinguished career of congresswoman jane harman from california. i want to recognize jane in the well and you can say a few words and then we'll have some other people make a brief comment. jane. mrs. harman: thank you, norm dicks, my longest standing, certainly not my oldest friend in the house. and thank you, colleagues. my congressional career will close on february 28 so that the constitutionally required special election to replace me can coincide with a state-wide referendum governor brown

intends to hold in california late they are year. this timing will save taxpayer money, a very good thing, ensure a higher turnout and most quickly fill the vacancy created by my resignation. the messages that have flooded my offices since i announced my departure have touched me deeply. the extraordinary honor of a congratulatory statement by the president was completely unexpected and absolutely thrilling but the message i may treasure most came from one of my four children. it said simply, brave mama. for 17 years, i have worked my heart out for the people of california's 36th congressional district. i cast votes with which some strongly disagreed, but i have always tried my best to listen and lead.

the opportunity awaiting me at the woodrow wilson international center for scholars is enormous. following the footsteps of our former member, lee hamilton. it is truly a center of excellence and a place where i believe i can add real value to bipartisan scholarship and policymaking. but nothing, and i mean nothing, will ever replace the two decades-long journey i have just completed as i sought and won a seat in congress. my first and only elected office. i have worked closely with many of you in committees and caucuses like the blue dogs and the new democrats and on legislation. with some here, i have visited garden spots like north korea, libya, syria, afghanistan, pakistan an yemen to assess the threats we face. those threats as you all know

are extremely serious. such foreign travel is, i believe, a wonderful way to build personal, bipartisan friendships. something dearly needed here. as a life-long, passionate, bipartisan in my bones democrat, i have been criticized by both sides. but the center is where, in my view, most americans are and where in many cases the best policy answers are. i will bring that perspective with me to my new post at the wilson center. let me make two final points. first, over the years, i have worked hard to hire and train the best staff on the planet. we call ourselves team harman. mr. dicks: the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. mrs. harman: at annual reunions

i marvel at how they and their families have grown. i truly love them and know how their extraordinary efforts are appreciated by my constituents and other offices. and second, i always say they represent the smartest constituents on earth. this is not a joke. they have helped me enormously to do my job well. sydney, my young sydney and i in our -- and our ever-growing family thank them for the milestones and memories. i may be changing my day job but not my residence or my heart. so as i conclude my final statement of the floor of the house, i depart with great affection and gratitude to wonderful colleagues, to very long-standing friends to a leadership with whom i have worked closely, to my sisters from california and throughout the united states on both sides of the aisle, all of you have

become valued, valued, valued, very valued friends. mr. dicks: i yield to the democratic leader. ms. pelosi: to our valued, valued, valued friend jane harman, to a valued california, to a great leader in our country, i know i speak for everyone in this congress on this occasion when i say we have been proud to call you colleague. and again, for many of us, to value you as a friend. jane harman's contribution to

our country is one as a patriot, not only for her great service in the congress of the united states, but she and her family, her young sydney, have been a source of strength to our country, whether it comes to security, our national security, the arts, the education of the next generation. we all know that our first responsibility is to keep the american people safe. no one has done more in that regard than jane harman and also in conveying the values of our great nation throughout the world. the woodrow wilson center is fortunate indeed to have her leadership. it will be a great combination. so i say, jane, we all choke up when we hear you say it's your last statement on the floor. we've all benefited from your wisdom. we congratulate you and send you off with great love, brave mama. i'm pleased to yield back the time.

mr. dicks: i yield to the democratic whip, mr. hoyer of maryland. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman from washington state for yielding. i thank the leader for her remarks. jane harman and i have known each other for almost half a century. we grew up together in many ways. became involved in public service. and i've seen her grow into one of the great leaders in this country on issues of national security. national security is one of the most bipartisan issues with which we deal. everyone knows that we swear an oath to defend the constitution. and laws of this nation. and that we have a responsibility to ensure the safety of our country and the safety of our people. few among us have taken more to heart that responsibility than

jane harman of california. jane, of course, as all of you know, served on the intelligence committee. she served on the intelligence committee as ranking member for a long period of time. if you ask the people in the intelligence community or the defense community, and of course she served on the staff of the department of defense as well, and a number of administrations, they will tell you that jane harman is as knowledgeable, as incisive, as thoughtful, as analytical as anybody with whom they have dealt in the congress of the united states. we will be a lesser congress for her leaving us and have less of an expertise. although many experts we still have. jane has been a voice to the american people on the focus that we have needed to keep our

country safe and to confront those terrorists who would put us at risk. jane, we owe you a debt of gratitude. your constituents owe you a debt of gratitude an your country owes you a debt of gratitude. the sadness of your leaving is 11ed somewhat by the fact that you will continue to be involved and your expert -- expertise will continue to be available in your new position as the leader of the woodrow wilson center. a distinguished center of thought and focus on issues of international security and policy. we thank you for your service. we wish you the very best. and we are so glad to know that you're just a few blocks down the road so that we will be able to call upon you to give your very thoughtful insights, analysis, and advice to the issues that confront this

nation and all of us, democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives, which as you rightly point out is not an issue of ideology but of practical safety for our citizens and nations. thank you, dear friend. thank you, dear colleague. thank you, dear american leader. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. dicks: i yield to the gentleman from california, former chairman of the appropriations committee subcommittee, mr. lewis, our good friend. mr. lewis: thank you. as we were sharing thoughts about you, dear jane, she expressed some consternation that she had not been able to find a young sid. but nonetheless, she suggests

you're going to put up with me anyway. we have admired your work for all of my life in public affairs, since i've been in the congress. you've become a wonderful friend as well as a policy partner. i can't tell you how much i enjoyed our years together on the intelligence committee. i work on maff of our -- our work on behalf of the national security committee has been important to us. you are a wonderful person, a wonderful personality, and we love you and wish you well as you go forward, jane. mr. dicks: i have known jane for 42 years. she was a staff assistant to senator tony when i was a staff assistant to senator magnusson. we have worked together as colleagues ever since. we love sydney. we are so excited that there still is a woodrow wilson center for you to go to.

and we appreciate your great service to our country and thank you for everything that you've done. i do yield to my friend. >> i thank my friend for yielding. we have lots of work to do here, we've gone through an extraordinary process the last few days, but the moment i heard something was being said about my friend jane harman i rushed down stairs to say that when i think of jane harman i i think of the quintessential citizen quhitted to bipartisanship. she has worked to reach across the aisle whether it's dealing with national security and foreign policy issues or domestic issues or issues as we share the representation of the los angeles area. i want to say that the woodrow wilson center is -- we all respected lee hamilton but it's beginning to be a greater place now with jane harman this. i thank my friend for yielding. mr. dicks: thank you. jane, we wish you well at the woodrow wilson center.

we know you will do a fantastic job. again, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

the chair: the committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. could the gentleman specify the number on your amendment, please? >> number 336. the chair: 336.

the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 336 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. bishop of new york. >> madam chairman. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order was reserved. the gentleman's recognized for five minutes. mr. bishop: thank you, madam speaker. i'm going to yield myself four minutes. my amendment is very simple and very straightforward. it would simply append to the end of the bill a requirement that not later than 90 days after the enactment of h.r. 1 the director of the congressional budget office and the commissioner of the bureau of labor statistics shall jointly conduct a study that would illustrate the affect in this act will have on job levels and, second, that these affects will be reported on a monthly basis to the american people on the first friday of each month. we have competing visions of what the effect of h.r. 1 will

be. we have the economic policy institute which has estimated that the implications of h.r. 1 will be a job loss of over 800,000. we have the center for the american progress saying that the results of passing h.r. 1 will be a job loss of 650,000 jobs directly and 325,000 indirect jobs lost. and then we have speaker boehner, speaker boehner says, and i'm quoting him exactly, he says that if we reduce spending we'll create a better environment for job creation in america. and so very simply put, what my amendment does is it finds out who's right. is the economic policy institute right? is the center for american progress right? or is speaker boehner and others who believe that this will in fact create jobs? and letmy me say why i am so focused on this. h.r. 1 cuts funding for the office of science by 20%. $1.1 billion. tanned cuts funding by 40% for

the energy efficiency and renewable energy program. these are the two programs that support a department of energy lab in my district, that is the second largest employer in my district, and so i ask the administrators of the lab to tell me what the implications would be. so this is one set of cuts in one district on one facility. and what the implications will be would be a layoff of 1/3 of the work force and the shutdown of two very important analytical pieces of equipment that attract 3,300 scientists from all over the world. so we would lay off 1/3 of my constituents and we would reduce the number of scientists who use this facility by 3,300. that's 3,300 people not staying in our hotels, not renting our cars, not eating in our restaurants, not buying their coffee in their delis. so that's just one district, one facility, one decision. let us find out whether or not

this bill, h.r. 1, will in fact be the engine of job creation ma the majority has presented it to be or will it destroy jobs as we believe it will and as the center for economic progress believes that it will and with that i will yield back the balance of my time -- yield the balance of my time to the gentlelady from connecticut, ms. delauro. the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for the balance of the time. ms. delauro: i thank the gentleman and rise to support his amendment. we should have a quantifiable way of finding out the impact of this continuing resolution on job creation. what else could be more important that that? -- than that? there was an examination of the jobs that came out of the economic recovery program. if this continuing resolution would be enacted into law, will the unemployment rate decrease? will wages go up for middle class families?

will this continuing resolution help to turn the economy around? i would think that the majority would welcome the opportunity to verify their claims that the continuing resolution would create jobs. let's prove us wrong. we believe that it will destroy jobs. prove us wrong. unless you feel that if jobs are lost, so be it. so why not have the bureau of labor statistics work on these critical issues? and i ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, what are you afraid of? and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from new york. the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and

therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states, an amendment to a general appropriation shall not be in order if changing existing law. mr. aderholt: the amendment imposes additional duties. i ask for ruling of the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to address the point of order? the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i am prepared to accept your ruling on the point of order but i would like to make this comment. mr. bishop: and the comment is, why would you not want to have the information that this amendment would elicit? it's very important information. we all know that our actions have consequences. we all know that the republican leadership promised us the most transparent congress in mystery. -- history. the chair: the chair is prepared to rule. the gentleman is not addressing the point of order. the chair finds that this amendment imposes new duties. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in

violation of clause 2 of rule 21, the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> i move the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion to rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the committee will rise. >> madam chair. the chair: the committee of the whole house in the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 1, reports that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee

has had under consideration h.r. 1 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of h.r. 1 and the committee of the whole, pursuant to house resolution 92, and the order of the house of february 17, 2011, it shall be in order for the chair or ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments specified in the order of the house of february 17, not earlier disposed of. mr. rogers: and that amendments so offered shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by said chair and ranking minority member, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection?

mr. dicks: i rise but i do not intend to object. this is for the mems who want to voluntarily enter into this arrangement. isn't that correct? mr. rogers: the gentleman's correct. mr. dicks: i have no objection. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman withdraws his objection. without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 92 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 1. would the gentlewoman from west virginia, mrs. capito, kindly resume the chair? the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense and the other departments and agencies of the government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2011,

and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, amendment number 336, offered by the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop, had been disposed of and the bill had been read through page 359, line 22. pursuant to the order of the house of today, the chair or ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations may offer certain amendments en bloc to be considered under the terms of that order. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. bishop: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 414 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. bishop of new york. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house, the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. bishop: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you. my amendment is very straightforward. it would simply stipulate that none of the funds available in

this act may be used to further the construction of the national bioand -- bio and agro defense facility in kansas commonly referred to as -- anyone concerned about fiscally responsible behavior should want to see stopped. anyone who's concerned about fiscally responsible behavior should be supporting my amendment. here are the facts. it was originally estimated to cost $451 million. current estimates are that the cost will be in excess of $915 million. the department of homeland security has consistently stated that the sale of plum island in my district would cover the cost of it. this is not even remotely accurate. any reasonable estimate of the cost of plum island will be at least -- will be no better than $80 million. why should the american taxpayer invest $1 billion in this project with hardly any offset

for a project that is essentially redundant? now, my friends from kansas, and i certainly understand their interest, have criticized this amendment as constituting parochial politics. and i would say with respect to my friends that i don't see anything parochial about trying to shield the american taxpayer from an investment of $1 billion in a facility that we do not need. so i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i would urge my colleagues who are concerned about spending, and we all, every one of us in this chamber, is concerned about spending, here's an opportunity to cut spending that we simply do not need and with that i will yield the balance of my time to mr. price of north carolina. the chair: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. mr. price: i commend the gentleman from new york for raising this issue and i thank him for the time.

as he knows, i've had a longstanding concern about the decision to relocate the national bio and agro defense facility to the mainland without a comprehensive and validated strategy to prevent the release of harmful pathogens into the community. when i was chairman of the subcommittee overseeing appropriations for the department of homeland security, i championed a requirement that prohibited the use of funds in fiscal 2010 for that construction, until a site specific risk assessment was completed and the results were validate -- value daylighted by the national academy of sciences. this work was completed last november and the results were somewhat disconcerting. with respect to the possible release of foot and mouth disease. . so i appreciate the language in the continuing resolution that requires a revised risk assessment once the facility is 50% designed and that this

assessment be reviewed by the national academy of sciences. this is good oversight, but this must be done before d.h.s. can responsibly provide construction funding for in bath. i would prefer to condition funds on completion of this additional oversight. however, i also recognize that there are no funds in the underlying c.r. for in bath in fiscal year 2011, making such a conditioning of funds unnecessary. therefore, i have no objection to my friend from new york's approach and i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i ride in opposition to the amendment. there is a broad -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. aderholt: there is broad consensus that construction and evental of this facility is crucial to our national security. this language that is included in the c.r. will ensure getting

this project done while existing firm oversight and risk costs are being considered. we have included rigorous oversight language in the c.r. requiring the science and technology to revise its risk analysis. once its completed, 50% design planning of the facility. it will have incorporated the plan and security measures. the c.r. provides for the national security of sciences to revise the analysis. i would like to recognize the gentlelady from kansas for two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. >> in 2009 after a three-year review the department of homeland security chose manhattan, kansas as the site for the facility. in bath will be a cutting edge research facility and it will accelerate our nation's ability to protect ourselves, our food

supply and our economy from biology call threats and animal research facility and further sold file our nation's place in animal research. it has the support of both the bush and obama administration. this week, president obama included $150 million in his budget to begin its construction. this inclusion shows the commitment from the president and secretary napolitano to see this facility moves forward as planned so we can conduct critical measures in order to protect the public and our livestock from the threats of devastating disease. this debate should be about our national security, not pennsylvania rocky kial politics. in this age to protect our nation, this could not be more crucial.

and we are dangerously underprotected from the threat of a biological attack against our people and food. in fact, the bipartisan commission on the prevention of weapons of mass destruction, proliferation and terrorism recently issued a report card that gave the federal government a failing grade for efforts to prevent a biological attack. we need to protect our food and families from danger and stand on the cutting edge, our security is at risk in delaying this project further because the gentleman from new york would prefer to preserve an outdated lab in his district which is not an option. we need in bath and i urge my colleagues to vote against this destructive amendment. i yield back. mr. aderholt: i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from kansas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today in strong opposition to the bishop

amendment. reports indicate that the most imminent critical threat to our nation's homeland security is a biological attack that could result in a food crisis brought on by disease hoping to infect livestock and agriculture production and the results could be devastating. the facility is a safe, secure, agricultural and biocontainment lab and is the proper facility to research and protect american agriculture from the threats that exist from both foreign and abroad. i ask my colleagues to join me in an effort to oppose the bishop amendment that would turn back the clock and save the country no money in the name of spopping this project. i yield back. mr. aderholt: there is broad consensus of the evental operation of this facility is crucial to national security. this amendment reflects a well

crafted, stringent oversight requirement that was developed on a bipartisan with the ranking member of this subcommittee. so i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york has yielded back. the gentleman from alabama yield his time? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. mr. bishop: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk, number 519. the chair: clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 519 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. campbell of california. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 17, 2011, the gentleman from california, mr. campbell and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. campbell: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. campbell: secretary gates and secretary clinton have said that our debt is a national security issue. and it is. they are correct. and when you look at our debt, it is a function of multiple deficits and largest spending item we have in the federal government are the entitlements. but number two is defense. we cannot reduce our deficit substantially and deal with our debt problem without reducing the costs of our number one and number two expenses. this amendment deals with number

two, the departments of defense and homeland security. in the bill before us, those departments have a roughly 1% increase in spending. we are trying to reduce the deficit here and we have increased defense and homeland security. what this amendment would do is turn that 1% increase into roughly 2.5% decrease in spending. now, it is across the board, although it does not affect overseas contingency operations. the wars will be unaffected. the opposition will come in a moment and decry that this is going to devastate the country and make us unable to defend ourselves. i submit that is not the case and let me give you a few reasons. this funding is 98% of last year's funding. any organization, including the department of defense and homeland security ought to be able to complete their mission and serve their constituencies for 98% for last year's cost.

second, there are 755,000 civilian employees in the department of defense. that is one civilian employee for every two uniformed personnel. do we really need that many civilian employees in the department of defense? three, there are many weapons systems funded in the defense department which the defense department does not want. they are there because of influential members of congress. defense has always been the most ear marked section. four, there are many items in defense that are unrelated to defense. spenders in this house have figured out if they put unrelated spending, environmental spending, medical research, other things in the department of defense, it will be shielded from being reduced, and that should not be the case. and third, since 2006, defense spending has increased by 32% in a period of almost no inflation while the war in iraq was

winding down. madam chairwoman, we must learn how to defend this country for less and we can do that. there are plenty of things we can do. madam chairwoman, we need to defend our country against vulnerability, but our debt 47% held by foreigners is a greater threat to the security of this country than any aircraft carrier. it is a greater threat than any military force out there and we have to deal with that and we can't deal with this debt unless we include the large spending in the departments of defense and homeland security and defend this country for less. i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. who seeks time? for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. aderholt: i rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

the c.r. that we are debating here and have been for the last couple of days strikes the right balance between sustaining programs that are crucial to our nation's security and keeping our discretionary spending in check. this c.r. doesn't make a choice between fiscal discipline and security. it does both. and it does so in a responsible manner. in fact, the c.r. significantly reduces the funding available to the department of homeland security by more than $1 billion and fully pays for fema's $1.6 billion disaster relief shortfall. madam chair, this c.r. attempts to cut the fat out of the department of homeland security and does so in a way that does not harm vital security operations. the gentleman's amendment cuts everything across the department and that is both unnecessary and potentially harmful, especially at a time of mightend threats and terrorist activity. at this point, i yield one

minute to the gentleman from washington, mr. dicks. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. dicks: i rise in strong opposition. the department of defense was not spared from cuts. the bill already slashes $15 billion from the president's request. this amendment would take it down another $18 billion or $33 billion in total. i'm concerned that the levels of cuts proposed by the gentleman from california go too far and will adversely affect many defense readiness programs. such as i said in other areas, this is not time to take a hatchets to these programs. it would cause d.o.d. to terminate contracts which will force companies to lay off employees. defense spending cannot be justified simply by jobs. but at the same time, the prospect of adding to our unemployment just as we are emerging from the recession should be a consideration. in total, the office of secretary of defense has identified 124 major acquisition programs that would be significantly disrupted by

approaching the fiscal year 2010 levels. dropping funding by an additional $18 billion to reach the 3.5 reduction would disrupt the readiness and safety of our forces. this is a very bad amendment and we should defeat it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. aderholt: i would like to recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to oppose this amendment. the budget is $14.8 billion below the request and 3% reduction. and of course, our committee wants to address the federal deficit as to other committees. further arbitrary reductions, especially in this magnitude, $23.5 billion, will bring

basically the department of defense to a grinding halt, perhaps fund beyond what is reasonable. the amendment would require cancelling training for returning troops, cancelling navy training exercises, reducing flight training, maintenance of aircraft, ships or vehicles, delaying important safety and quality of life repairs to facilities and military bar racks. we should be showing support for our troops and not undercutting even for good reason by making reductions of this amount and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. aderholt: i yield one minute to the ranking member. mr. price: i rise in strong opposition to this which reduces funding to the department of homeland security by 3.%. under the c.r., funding for homeland security is already 3%

below the 2010 enacted level and the $1.65 billion in disaster needs funded in this bill cuts deep into homeland security programs. an additional $3.5% reduction would weaken our security. if this reduction were adopted, critical programs such as border security, disaster relief, immigration enforcement, transportation security would no longer be shielded from ill-advised cuts. the department would be required to lay off staff we have hired over the past two years, including border patrol agents, i.c.e. investigators along the southwest border and secret service agents to respond to heightend threats against the president. this reduction to mean the department would need to abandon technology procurements that would protect our aviation and transit system. in short, this is ill-advised in the extreme. i urge members to vote no.

>> i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. >> may i inquire how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from california has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from alabama has one minute remaining. >> i will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. duncan. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. duncan: i thank the gentleman from california for yielding me this time and first i'd like to commend chairman rogers and his staff because i'm sure they've tried to do as much as they thought they possibly could in what would get through the senate. but i rise at this time to especially commend the gentleman from california, mr. campbell, for making what i consider to be a very courageous amendment. he knows that this amendment is probably not going to get many votes but i'll tell you, this amendment sends a -- makes a very important point and send as very powerful message and that is that nothing should be left

off the table. there should be no sacred caos -- cowsa. as he has pointed out, as the gentleman from california has pointed out, the pentagon actually receives an increase under this bill. but we can no longer afford to have higher military spending than all the other nations of the world combined. we're facing an astounding $1.6 trillion deficit, ads 14 trillion debt and there's -- a $14 trillion debt and there's no way we can come even close to doing what we should do if we leave any departments or agencies -- or make them not look for savings. the president's commission said that very thing. they said that the pentagon was going to have to look for savings and as far as homeland security, "the wall street journal" had an editorial that they noticed that we were voting for almost anything and everything if it had the word security attached and they said, from now on we should get four times the weight and twice the

scrutiny to anything with the word security in it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. duncan: thank you. the chair: the gentleman from alabama. mr. rogers: let me just reiterate again that -- mr. aderholt: let me just reiterate again that the gentleman's proposed cut goes too far. they would cut and harm border security, transportation security, marine time security, cargo security, cybersecurity, immigration enforcement and disaster preparedness. the list of crucial programs that would be adversely impacted by this across the board amendment goes on and on. i would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. >> on that i would request a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: i have an amendment at the desk, number 246. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 246 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 17, 2011, the gentleman from georgia, mr. broun, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: thank you, madam chairman. my amendment would prevent funding of the u.s. army corps' beach replenishment program and projected authorized thsdz 91 million for 2011, almost $1 billion up over the next decade. the army corps plans to replenish sand at certain beaches to slow the course of erosion. first and foremost, this is not

a proper constitutional function for the federal government. each beach community along with their local governments should decide how they will best approach erosion. as a primary beneficiary, they can best decide their needs and financial priorities. the top-down system currently employed comes from a flawed mindset, a mindset that we must address if we hope to escape our spending crisis. a mindset that the federal government does everything for everybody. this is simply federal spending that we cannot afford and federal control that we don't need. i ask that my colleagues support my amendment to defund this now and work with me to strip this and other similar projects from future budgets as well. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i rise in opposition and to claim time --

the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. mr. frelinghuysen: i share the gentleman's concern over responsible spending and need to address the nation's deficit problem. that's why our continuing resolution before us reduces spending by historic proportions in the continuing resolution. where i differ from my colleague is whether there is a federal interest in feature replenishment projects. it's not just dumping sand on shores so people can have fun. these projects provide states with protection from coastal storms, for individuals and businesses. and these projects must meet the same standards of economic justification and coast benefit ratios as other projects and navigation projects. i'd like if i could to yield to mrs. young of florida, a former -- mr. young of florida. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. young: i thank the gentleman

for yielding to me. as much as i admire and respect the introducer of this amendment, i really have to oppose this amendment. the beaches are an important and a valued asset to the united states of america. economically, huge economic factor. the protection of properties and on land, huge protection device for beaches against a hurricane, the storm surge, the -- you might get the idea that i represent a district that had a lot of beaches and i would tell you that this is extremely important to our economy. when the b.p. oil spill was flowing through the gulf of mexico we worried every day whether that was going to come to our beaches, in my part of the state they did not, thank god. but we were concerned what that might do to destroy a major part of our economy. so i thank the gentleman, mr. frelinghuysen makes a strong

argument and i thank him for letting me support him in his opposition. mr. frelinghuysen: thank you. pleased to yield a minute to the ranking member, mr. dicks. mr. dicks: yes, i appreciate the gentleman yielding and i understand there's a school of thought that we should just let nature take its way. i believe so strongly on the west coast of washington state, we have from time to time had to come out and put in projects to save cities, save housing, maim housing projects. and -- major housing projects. and we've done this with the corps of engineers very effectively, using the best science. they have their big, in mississippi they have a big center where they study how to do these things. and yet, you know, yes it does cost a little bit of money but we are saving assets, billions and billions of dollars. and i just think that this is a very unfortunate amendment and we should on a bipartisan basis

defeat it and let the corps do what it has to do to save cities and coastal areas across america. thank you for yielding. mr. young: i'd like to -- mr. frelinghuysen: i'd like to yield main to mr. kingston, a fellow member of the committee. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman for yielding and want to say to my friend from athens, georgia, where you do not have beaches, you know that the local share, once the corps of engineers does a cost-benefit analysis which is always does, there's a requirement of the state and the local government kick in. and the state gives a pretty good amount of money but the reason why they may be more motivated from an economic basis is they directly benefit from the economic impact. do i agree with you the federal government should not be worried about the economic impact, but where the federal government is most concerned is in flood control and as you and i know, the more sand you have in between you and the high tide when the hurricane comes, the more protected you're going to

be. and as long as we have fema that writes checks after disasters and a national flood insurance program, there's a good reason that the federal government is involved with beach renewerishment. it has nothing to do with legislation, but a heck of a lot to do with flood protection and that's why the federal government is involved in it. so, to my friend from athens, you are welcome to come to the islands, despite this irresponsible amendment of yours. i'm going to oppose it and welcome you to come. mr. frelinghuysen: could i inquire about time? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. frelinghuysen: i'd like to yield to mr. pa pallone from new jersey for the remaining minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong opposition to this amendment. beach replenishment san economic engine for towns and the tourism industry. it ultimately creates jobs.

and also it's based on an army corps cost-benefit analysis that says that for every $1 we spend on beach replenishment, we save $2 or $3 depending on the cost-benefit analysis that doesn't have to get paid by the tral government during a disaster. so beach replenishment actually saves the federal government money. it has to otherwise the projects are not authorized by the arbitrarilyy -- army corps of engineers. in addition to that there is no way that local municipalities would be able to afford to do this. many of them are very small, they have a few thousand people, i use my own state of new jersey as an example. so you would be cutting off any kind of beach replenishment, any kind of protection in the event of a storm and ultimately having to pay out those dollars in fema down the road. makes no sense. this is something that will cost the federal government more money over the long run and it's very ill-advised. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia is recognized and the gentleman has four minutes remaining.

mr. broun: mr. chairman, i love beaches and my friend from florida's beaches as well as my friend from washington's beaches. as well as my friend from oregon's beaches. in these hard economic times i think it's just absolutely incredible that we're spending this kind of money, almost $1 billion over the next 10 years, just for beach replenishment and i'd like to yield a minute of time to my friend from oregon. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this and he's raising an issue that i think is sensitive and frankly deserves far more consideration than it has been given by this congress. there is great debate, frankly, about this science of artificial beach construction. part of the concern about the cycle of the federal government routinely bailing people out is

in fact some locational decisions in the first place. the cost allocation can be quite variable. there have been real questions about some of the projects that have been dictated. in fact, in one instance the corps of engineer item on artificial beach replacement imbedded in a re-authorization is one of the biggest public works projects over the course of 50 years and really didn't get the scrutiny. now, whether you think extreme weather events are part of climate change or caused by humans or whether it's part of a natural cycle of weather, the gentleman is spotlighting a very significant long-term federal -- may i have -- mr. broun: i yield the gentleman another minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: is highlighting a very important area of federal responsibility. if we're not careful, the taxpayer could be on the hook for a great deal more money.

in some cases the beaches in question aren't even available to the public and the concern about some of the artificial beach construction techniques of for thefication and putting sand actually deflects the problems further up along the coast and can actually create more problems in other places and make them more secure. so i appreciate the gentleman putting the spotlight on this. i think it is important that every member of congress look at the history of these projects, the long-term obligation and look for ways that we might be able to do this in a way that's more fiscally responsible and environmentally sensitive. and thank him for the time. -- and i thank him for the time. mr. broun: i thank the gentleman for weag in on this. certainly the science is -- weighing in on this. certainly the science is questionable as a lot of science is questionable, the policy that we generate.

but it's also fiscally irresponsible i think to spend this kind of money. and so i hope that my colleagues will support this commonsense, fiscally responsible amendment and vote for my amendment with and with that i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia -- georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. broun: i ask the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. broun: yes. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. .

the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 263 printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. broun of georgia. the chair: pursuant to the house on february 17, 2011, the gentleman from georgia, a and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia for five minutes. mr. broun: thank you, mr. chairman. in the united nations over and over again, we see enemies of america, enemies of our freedom voting against us over and over again. we see an organization there that's rift with fraud,

corruption with a tremendous amount of problems. we see the u.n. bring people over here who have diplomatic immunity who have been caught in the business of spying against america, want to harm us. we see in the u.n. an organization that is in their human rights commission is populated by countries that are basically run by terrorist organizations. mr. chairman, it's time to take a solid stand against our supporting against this kind of organization, by giving our taxpayers hard-earned money in taxpayer dollars to an organization that i believe is not in the best interest of america. mr. chairman i personally would

like to see us get out of the u.n. and get the u.n. out of the u.s., but we cannot do that today, but what we can do in this continuing resolution, we can deny taxpayer dollars being wasted on this organization and so thus, i have the amendment to stop the united states paying dues to the united nationses. i think it's in our best interest to do so. it's in our best interest of the taxpayer of america to prevent wasting their hard-earned taxpayer dollars on funding the u.n. through our dues to the u.n. so i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to defund the u.n. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does gentlelady seek recognition? mrs. lowey: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.

mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i rise in strong opposition to the broun amendment which would withhold excess contributions to the u.n. directly contraconvenienting u.s. treaty obligations and national security interests. it would isolate the u.s., crip will u.s. efforts diplomatically, weaken our leadership in the u.n. to advance crucial foreign policy priorities. the u.n. is critical to advancing u.s. national security interests and the broun amendment would impede our ability to influence crucial counterterrorism actions at the u.n. security council including concrete steps attacking al qaeda and the taliban, regimes in north korea and iran in which the security council has acted forcefully in recent years, imposing the most comprehensive

sanctions ever on these regimes. u.n. missions in afghanistan and iraq, which play crucial and growing roles in both countries, supplementing u.s. efforts and reducing our burden. u.n. peacekeeping operations which are an indispensible tool have saved untold lives, averted wars, help establish democratic rule in more than a dozen countries. the broun amendment would put the u.s. on a dangerous path to isolationism. we learned on september 11, 2001, that we are not immune from events that take place halfway around the world. there are enormous challenges that we all must face together. and united states cannot close its borders and think that we can protect our own security. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment to effectively

withdraw from the u.n. because it would endanger our national security. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i continue to reserve. . mrs. lowey: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the chair: the gentlelady from texas is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: i rise to oppose the amendment and i thank you for your outstanding stewardship of american dollars as it relates to our standing in the world. i understand the gentleman's concern but the united nations is where you draw consensus and where we are able to sit at the table and ask individual countries to join with us for what democracy means. as you watch the rising crisis in the middle east, it is the united nationses we can draw upon to emphasize democracy. as you watch the conflict in

egypt where we celebrated what happened and many of you are aware of the tragedy that happened to one of our american reporters, ms. logan. the united nations is where we can call upon the viptian government to explain themselves and apologize and call on the u.n. ambassador from egypt to apologize to ms. logan for the tragedy that happened to this woman who was doing her job, the sexual assault, the vicious sexual assault that happened to her. we can ask others to family. the world family is a place where we can get solutions. i oppose the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. who seeks recognition? mrs. lowey: i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. moran: this is the 21st

century, we have to live with our neighbors. united nations, if it didn't exist, we would have to invent it. the fact is, even the government accountability office estimates that a u.n. peacekeeping force is eight times less expensive than funding a military force. we are going to have to move to smart power and can't put our troops at risk to put out the flames that erupt all over the world. the u.n. does that. they don't do it perfectly, but they are an ally and our most important ally. we have to find a way to secure peace in the world and ever since president wilson came up with the league of nations, united nations continues to revolve and reflect our values. this is not the time to be pulling the rug under from under them. the u.n. represents every other nation in the world. we don't agree with all of them,

but we have more influence in the united nations than any other nation in the world. we ought to have that influence, but the u.n. overall reflects our values. let's work with them. we didn't have them, we would have to invent them for our interests. this is not the right amendment. this amendment should be defeated. and i thank the chair lady. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. broun: i yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. kingston. mr. kingston: i'm hearing about how the u.n. was a wonderful organization, where were they when rwanda was going, the worst genocide in modern times. where was the u.n.? and we know they were absolutely no where, 800,000 people killed,

slaughtered and absolute genocide and they went from april until july 6, 800,000 people killed with machetes and the u.n. debated the definition of genocide. the u.n. is not there when you need them. they spend lots of time condemning israel and lots of time anti-united states jabs and aren't helpful on egypt, yemen or anywhere else in the middle east where the pot is boiling over. but i remember so vividly genocide in rwanda and the u.n. not being there. and i would suggest to people, you want to read books, "read the book hotel rwanda." we regret to inform you that they are coming for your children. there are lots of books and it's well documented on how

absolutely worthless the u.n. was. and i yield back. mr. broun: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mrs. lowey: how much time do we have remaining? the chair: the gentlelady has one minute remaining and the gentleman from georgia 1 1/2 minutes. mrs. lowey: i just want to make it very clear that none of us are making a statement that the u.n. can solve all the problems in the world, but i want to reiterate again a comment that my good friend, mr. moran made. if we are going to put a cacoon around our country and operate in isolation, we will be less successful in dealing with the extraordinary challenges that we are facing today. and i would like to say to my good friend, mr. kingston, i'm not quite sure that we would be more successful in dealing with

genocide without the u.n. we are working very hard with our colleagues and our friends around the world to try and find solutions. and i would like to yield to my good friend, mr. moran. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: i would ask mr. kingston, what's the alternative? should we have gone into rwanda? the u.n. was an abysmal failure. and if we didn't have the united nations, the united states would be asked to carry out themselves. we can't be the world's policemen. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. broun: i'm not an isolationist but the u.n. is a dismal failure and we need to stop throwing our money down a rat hole. it's not dependent on us to keep the world safe. in fact, we with our allies all across this globe can do what's

necessary far more efficiently without the wasting of american taxpayers' dollars in trying to foster democracy, foster human rights, foster women's rights all across the world stage. continue to pour money into the u.n. is not going to do anything except for keeping a group of people who are in power there, who against us as we try to stand firm to israel, as we try to stand firm for world peace and democracy. they want to take the u.n. governance and apply it to every american citizen. it's not in our best interest and waste of taxpayer dollars and totally ineffective as my

good friend from georgia said in rwanda and many other cases. it's time to stop funding this inefficient organization that's not in our best interest. i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. broun: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: number amendment 526 offered by mr. wu of oregon. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 17, 2011, the gentleman from oregon

and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. wu: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment prevents funds under the continuing resolution from being used to provide the federal energy regulatory commission or ferc, with exclusive authority to site, construct, expand or operate an l.n.g. terminal. simply put, it ends overbearing legislation and gives local government and private property owners a say in l.n.g. sitings. this is a state's rights' issue. ferc's overbroad regulatory structure is preventing states and local communities from having any input let-alone decision making over private property. there are proposals for construction of l.n.g. proposals

and i have heard from my constituents they are frustrated by ferc's intrusive projects and unclear time lines. more importantly, their voices are not being heard on decisions that affect their livelihoods and property rights. . ferc has demonstrated it's unwilling to work with l. nmple g. and is deaf@needs of citizens and communities. defunding them over l.n.g. products is a crucial first step toward establishing a local role in l. nmple g. siting process and to ensure that future decisions better reflect local citizens' interests. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: the gentleman's aoptometry to enact

significant legislative changes to a prior law, the law in question enacted by congress in the energy policy act of 2005 establishes the federal energy regulatory commission as the issuer of licenses for liquefied natural gas terminals. knot -- notwithstanding the merits of the gentleman's concerns, and we can see the gentleman cares deeply about the issue, this is not the appropriate place to modify such a law as the amendment would attempt to do. frankly saunching broad authorizing issue warrants suitably a more broad discussion. we would be happy to work with the gentleman to facile kit that wider discussion at the appropriate time on the appropriate bill and through the appropriate committees of jurisdiction. in this regard, i yield to my ranking member, mr. pastor of arizona, for the time that he may wish to consume. mr. pastor: i want to thank the chairman for recognizing and

providing time and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. pastor: this amendment would prevent ferc from carrying out their authority. it would affect existing and future liquid natural gas facilities. it disallows -- it will impact proposals in addition to almost any new facility and existing plants. while i understand the gentleman has concerns in his district, the language would impact a much broader constituency. for that purpose and for that reason i oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to join me i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon. mr. wu: i yield to the gentleman from massachusetts such time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. >> i thank the gentleman. on september 11, 2001, when the terrorism czar was asked to sit in the control room to take over the response on 9/11, the first call he made was to the port of the city of boston to shut down the port because of the l.n.g. facility in my district in massachusetts. mr. markey: that was the first thought in his mind. why was that so in because al qaeda had actually come in from algeria, jumping off those ships in boston harbor in everett, massachusetts in my district. now we've had a tremendous amount of development of natural gas in the shale formation and all across the country, an addition of 30% to the natural gas reserves of our country over the last four years. now if a city or state

determines that the terrorism threat is so great they do not want an l.n.g. facility in the middle of their most densely populated area, it should not be the right of the federal energy regulatory commission to override the public safety decision made by the state and local police that it is too great of a danger. that is why the wu amendment is correct. we have a bonanza of natural gas domestically. if the state decides they can get it from their open people rather than overseas, it's not up to the ferc to make that decision if they're going toover ride the national security of that community in making that decision. i urge an aye vote on the wu amendment. mr. wu: i urge an aye vote on this amendment and yealed back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. frelinghuysen: i urge a no vote. this should not be considered within the limbs of this

continuing resolution. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. wu: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings -- proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> i rise to offer an amendment preprinted in the condition gregsal record, designated as amendment number 27. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 27 offered by mr. markey of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to the

order of the house on february 17, 2011, the gentleman from massachusetts and a member opposed each will control five minutes. >> mr. chairman, on this amendment, it's 20 minutes, 10 minutes on each side. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house on february 17, 2011, the gentleman from massachusetts and a member opposed will each control 10 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i thank the chair. mr. chairman, we all agree that we have to do some serious work to reduce the deficit. but we need to start by first eliminating unnecessary taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies. i'm going to finish the rest of this opening statement in the well. mr. markey: as a result of a poorly drafted law passed by

the republican congress in 1995, oil companies are now drilling for free on public lands offshore in the gulf of mexico. the government accountability office projects that the american people currently stand to lose as much as $53 billion in royalty payments over the life of these leases. and according to a brand new study, that's as much as $1.5 billion just this year. with oil prices at $90 a barrel, we do not have to be allowing them to drill on public hands for free and taking all the profit for themselves and giving nothing back to the american taxpayer. this amendment is very simple. it says to these companies, we will allow you to continue to drill and not even pay any royalties but we're not going to give you that opportunity to bid on any new leases on public lands in our country. if you renegotiate so that

you're paying your fair share back to the american taxpayer, then fipe, you can drill in the future. but we need that $53 billion that they owe in royalties, in taxes, to be put toward reducing the federal deficit. that's what this debate should be all about. where do we go to find where the waste is in our federal government? the oil company is drilling for free, paying nothing to the taxpayers while reaping windfall profits. it's absolutely something that we should not tolerate. this amendment passed in 2006 on the house floor. this amendment passed as part of the b.p. response bill last year. this amendment passes over and over again with significant republican support, 60 votes just five years ago in order to reclaim this money. i urge an aye vote and reclaim -- reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for 10 minutes. >> contrary to what the gentleman said, it was not the republican congress but the clinton administration in 1995 and a throifl leases made at that time. if this amendment passed, companies with existing deepwater leases would be required to renegotiate lease terms before getting new leases. mr. simpson: companies with deep wourt royalty-free leases have been successful to avoid royalty agreements. the secretary does not have the authority to include price thresholds on these lease thesms problem stands from -- stems from language in the deepwater oil drilling itself that did not address or require the interior to include

royalties in the leases. forcing companies to renegotiate the leases would be a violation of contract law and would be challenged in court. this would only cost us millions of dollars more. this would hinder our leasing ability, redeucing rev muetoths federal government, not increasing revenues, as it limits the pool of potential leases. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield one and a half minutes to the interior and appropriations subcommittee, mr. moran. chip the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: we voted to sbsdies the cotton industry, nascar,ing aberry -- agribusiness, now we have the opportunity to correct the most egregious abuse of the federal taxpayer. $53 billion of oil that belongs to all american taxpayers is being given away. it's their oil. it's being drilled offshore. we own it.

but we're not charging royalties to the largest american corporations. that's the real rub of it. these are the most profitable corporations in america. b.p. is the biggest beneficiary. exxon, shell, conoco you name it. chevron. they're all at the trough. exxon, for example. last year, $383 billion in revenue. and yet we're told they didn't pay any american corporate taxs? they paid it to other countries but not the united states. at a time when we cut $1 billion out of head start and then we're going to give $53 billion to the wealthiest corporations of america, take american taxpayer-owned oil, this is insane. now it may have made some sense when oil was at $20 a barrel. but -- barrel. but when oil is at $80 a bafrle and the american consumer is having to pay $3.50 a tpwhron for gas, is this really the time we should be giving away $53 billion in oil?

no. let's stop this egregious abuse. we say we're in favor of eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, this is the worst abuse. let's stop it. support the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. -- expired. the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: i'm temperatured to ask the gentleman what part of contract that was signed by the clinton administration don't you understand but i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. lan drink. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lan di: i wish he would understand, we are not drilling right now. that's a problem. many on the other side of the aisle have been thrilled with the administration's moratorium and praise the department of interior's work or lack thereof in the deepwater drilling permit process since the deepwater oil spill. this amendment is insane. the gentleman must be confiding

with the likes of george so ross who happily watched and encouraged the most advanced deepwater drilling rigs leave the gulf of mexico to travel to brazil and africa. if they're not leaving the gulf of mexico for good, they're filing bankruptcy, like seahawk drilling in my district. this week, seahawk drilling blamed its demise on the uns prekented decline in the issuance of permits following the employeeout. they said in a statement, the decision by regulator, i quote to arbitraryly construct unnecessary barriers to obtain permits they have traditionally authorized has had an adverse impact not only on seahawk but the sector as a whole. seahawk's clients were waiting on 11 projects in various stages of the permitting processes, none of which have been approved. this just proves this administration and interior are not serious when they say they have lifted the deepwater

drilling moratorium. the minority is claiming this spending bill is a job-killing piece of legislation but they are just fine with increasing taxes on an industry that is in limbo and employs hundreds of thousands in my trick. louisianans are very hardworking, tough folks. they rarely ask for much. mr. chairman, they have been yelling loudly and beating down my door to tell me they are fed up and ready to go back to work. i guarantee you americans across the nation will begin to yell as well when they're paying more at the gas pump at a time when prices should be falling. the -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield one and a half minutes to the gentleman from new york, the author of this amendment in 2006, mr. hinchey. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. .

mr. hinchey: when the oil industry can't count their money fast enough they are getting away with highway robbery because of mistakes made many years ago. oil and gas companies are extracting resources from public property without paying royalties regardless of the price of oil and gas. it's time to fix the problem. g.a.o. has estimated not doing so will continue to cost taxpayers up to $53 billion. these hugely profitable companies are capping oil and gas reserves that belong to the american people, selling it back to us and reaping a profit on the backs of the middle class but not paying one red cent for the oil and gas they extract. they get it for free and we pay the price. i don't know a single person who would allow an oil or gas company to drill on their property and not be compensated for the oil extracted from that

land. why should the federal government be taken advantage of? congress has a chance to correct this injustice. last year, oil companies on the other hand over $70 billion in profits when oil profits were lower than they are today. with the cost of oil once again approaching $100 a barrel and prices at the pump rising, the idea that this industry is getting royalty relief is downright criminal. if we are serious about bringing down our deficit, we should adopt this amendment. it's an important amendment and makes perfect sense and it is in the best interest of all of the people of this country. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. scalise. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in strong opposition to this amendment and it's not being pointed out here is while

the gentleman from massachusetts is talking about companies and royalties, he fails to mention that the second largest source of federal revenue next to income taxes is royalties that are paid by oil companies. they are paying billions of dollars in royalties. they are hiring tens of thousands and in some cases probably in the millions of americans to work in the energy industry, but that right now is at jeopardy by this administration's policies. in fact, as my other colleague from louisiana just pointed out, another company filed for bankruptcy because of this administration's policies shutting off the ability to shut off policies and allowing people to go back to work. this amendment, my colleague talks about royalties, let's read what his amendment does as opposed to what he says. the amendment by amendment says none of the funds made available by this act may be used to issue any new lease that authorizes production of oil or natural gas

under the outer continental shelf lands act. this is about closing more domestic energy production at a time when the middle east hasn't been more volatile. you might as call is the opec protection amendment because it ensures more of these companies will be going out of the country, and by the way, is this hypothetical? it's not. i have a list of some of the rigs by some of the very companies that my colleague talks about that are already leaving. and one that has left because they can't do business in america is egypt. two of these billion dollar assets have said it is better to do business in egypt than america because of these radical policies. i guess my colleague is ok with shutting off more domestic energy and allowing more american companies to go bankrupt. the white house has acknowledged 12,000 americans have lost their jobs because of these policies and my colleague want to shut even more areas of the outer

continental shelf off. opec might like this amendment but americans who will be paying $5 at the pump this summer don't agree. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. holt: i thank the gentleman from massachusetts. this is really important. the country needs this money. the country owns this land. the country deserves these royalties. and whether we have not collected these royalties because of a mistake or because of a cozy relationship with the oil companies and the other party, for whatever reason these weren't collected, they should be collected. royalty relief, no, it's not

relief. this is what is supposed to be paid. and i think about all of the things that it should be going for. portions of the royalties are owed to the land and water conservation fund. this is what we spoke about yesterday. our nation's most successful open space preservation program that is supposed to take money from the depletion of resources, these oil resources and apply it to preservation of parks, recreation and open space. that's just one of the things that should be done with this money that is owed to the american taxpayers. i yield back the balance of my time. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: it was the clinton administration that let these leases. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. gohmert: we hear about a

cozy relationship and that's interesting because when you go back and look at the worst oil spill in american history from british petroleum and bp and why it took this administration to come down on them, we found it was one of the oil company that was willing to endorse the president's crap and trade bill and were ready to make a deal about it. and that's why you talk about cozy relationships, on oh, yeah, that's not enough, this administration helped to oversee these leases, the person who was responsible under the clinton administration for costing this country billions by taking out language that would gotten us the royalties we should have had. but one of the problems we should never lose sight of no matter how cozy the relationship was with the clinton administration and bp and this administration and bp and the 800 hazardous safety violations

they overlooked was is that this country's history has been one of integrity. go back to the war of 1812, banks in england loaned this country's businesses money and we had the war of 1812 and wept on for a couple of years, after that war, we were struggling. the world took notice and said this is a country that can be trusted. when they give you their word, it means something. now this administration and this provision would say, hey, if we make a contract with you and maybe because of this administration's cozy relationship, it's too good for you. we'll come back and cancel the deal and punish you because we were able to lure you into a deal. there has been more damage done to the gulf states by this president's moratorium. you want to help them with jobs, give them their jobs back, open up the provisions, get

alternative energy by using the proceeds from the drilling that this group has cut off. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, ms. capps. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. capps: i thank my colleague for yielding. i rise in support of this amendment to reduce the deficit and protect taxpayers. the nation's biggest companies won't be able to buy leases from the federal government if they want to keep drilling on the public's land for free, that's all. there is a consensus in this congress we need to address the federal deficit. with this amendment, we can. g.a.o. says we are giving $53 billion to the oil companies over the next 25 years if we do not fix the royalty relief law. so let's fix it and make the oil companies simply pay their fair share. let's stop pouring billions of dollars into their covers.

isn't it time we give our constituents a break. this is about the people we represent. they are taking their savings and putting it in their gas tanks and heating their homes. big oil doesn't need the profit. end the handout and reduce the deficit and protect the taxpayer, support the markey amendment. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: how much time is remaining. the chair: 2 1/2 minutes for the gentleman from idaho and 2 1/2 minutes for the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. simpson: do i have the right to close? the chair: yes. mr. simpson: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. markey: may i inquire of the chair if the gentleman is going to be the final speaker? mr. simpson: we have one final speaker left to close and that's the gentleman from texas. mr. markey: he is going to have all of your time to conclude?

mr. simpson: yes. mr. markey: i appreciate that. then i yield myself. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. markey: this amendment encapsulates this entire week. this week's debate is all about priority, will we stand with big oil or with big bird? with the big corporations or with the little guy? shell oil isn't curing our addiction to oil but millions of americans afflicted with alzheimer's and parkinson's, need these revenues from the oil companies. executives from bp won't be schiffering any time soon but our nation's poorest senior

citizens will be. conoco phillips doesn't need help but america's poorest women, infants and children who don't have enough to eat need help staying fed. chevron doesn't need special treatment, but special education programs for our need year students are on the chopping block. exxon mobil doesn't need a head start on success, but our kids need the head start program to send them on the right educational path. my amendment focuses on just the kind of special interest loophole that should be closed before we open attacks on program for the americans most in need of help. one of the several dozen companies receiving this windfall is bp. imagine that, bp spills oil freely into the gulf of mexico for 90 days and now they are drilling for free in some of those same waters at the expense of the american taxpayer. just last week, the former

president of shell oil was quoted in the "national journal" as saying in the face of sustained high oil prices, it was not an issue for large companies of needing the subsidies to entice them to looking for and producing more oil. i agree with him. at nearly $90 a barrel, subsidizing oil companies to drill is like subsidizing a bird to fly or a fish to swim. you do not have to do it. unless this amendment is adopted, exxon mobil, bp, shell, conoco phillips and chevron will hold leases that lets them drill on public land without paying taxpayers a single dime. these companies are already getting 100-year-old tax breaks to sell $100 a barrel oil to make $100 billion a year in profits. they don't need a $53 billion windfall courtesy of the

american taxpayer and our national debt. vote aye on the markey amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho. mr. simpson: i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. brady. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. brady: thank you, mr. chairman. you remember paul harvey "the rest of the story" you want to hear what is behind this debate. mid-1990's, how much oil we were importing from the middle east and the government encouraged companies to go out deeper in the gulf to create american-made energy. four years they signed lease agreements and companies here in america, they paid millions of dollars for leases with no knowledge whether there was oil or gas. they spent billions to drill not knowing if they would hit anything or not. they used american companies to

do it on american platforms with american workers and guess what? it worked. they created american-made oil and natural gas and kept it here for us. this outrage, the democrats, how could this happen. and by the way, these companies paid billions of dollars of royalties not on the price but how much they bring out of the ground. it was a win-win situation. taxpayers win, our jobs win. we get american-made energy. they took it to court four times and court said they wanted the american government to break its own contract and wanted the american government to break the contract. the court four times said no. now they have tried to extort the u.s. companies in saying you must break your contract or we will deny you any chance to do business in the gulf of mexico. that's what this amendment is about. it's extortion. they want businesses to break the contract with america that america can't break itself. if the government has the power

to force you to break the agreement they made with you, how much power will they have over you, over your family, over your business? and by the way, what's wrong with creating good old-fashioned american energy here in this country with our workers, with our companies, with the revenues coming to us and the local communities giving us affordable energy? isn't that what america is all about? our energy jobs aren't expendable. stop sending our gas and oil workers to the unemployment line. let let them explore here in america. does chavez need a bigger incentive to sell more oil in america. this amendment needs to go down on this house floor and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i rise in support of the markey amendment and ask unanimous consent to insert my statement into the word. the chair: without objection. the question is on the amendment

offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. markey: mr. chairman, i request the yeas and nays. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. . for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the chair will -- the clerk will designate the amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment number 409. the clerk: amendment number 409, printed in the congressional record, offered by mr. price of georgia. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house from february 17, 2011, the gentleman from fwea, mr. price, and a member opposed will each

control five minutes. mr. price: i think we've made significant improvements in the laws related to health care in this country today in this chamber. this is another portion of an amendment that would address the issue of health care. as a physician and dad, i care greatly about the issue of health care. i came to congress as one of the major reasons to try to fix the health care system and make it more patient-centered. over the last two years, we have seen a significant affront to our health care, with costs increasing, destroying principles as it relates to health care. last year, this congress made a lot of decisions that gai washington control over our health care. a perfect example of that is that obamacare mapdates to the companies that provide health coverage for individual house to run their business. essentially the federal government is in the business of dictating to private companies what they should do to run their business, what

kind of coverage they can provide, what kind of prices they can charge and what kind of definition of quality care and what meets the definition of essential services for individuals. it really is central planning at its finest and it is certainly not the government's role in a free market system. the goth has proven it's not well-qualified for mandating and defining what will be counted as quality improvement activity for the purposes of calculating the medical loss ratio. for instance, many of the fraud provisions that are required are excluded from being included in the medical ross ratio. the coding system that is required for health insurers to utilize is not able to be included in the medical loss ratio. what it does is compromise the opportunity for brokers to provide the best advice to citizens, it makes it so that these folks are exhale -- they're the exchanges, mr. chairman if you think about it. these folks will be pimplinged and pushed out of their jobs.

the ones helping our citizens to weed their way through the morass of health coverage in this country. the president said famously during this whole debate if you like what you have you can keep it. the fact of the matter is as you know, mr. chairman, and so many others know, that simply is not true. these medical loss ratio requirements will in fact break that promise to a further degree. so the amendment is very simple. it makes it so that no moneys in this bill can be utilized for the provision, for endorsing -- enforcing the medical loss ratio and destructive provisions in the health care. i urge my colleagues to back the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady rise? >> i rise to claim time np on -- in opposition. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. delawyer rowe: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman is recognize for three minutes. mr. tierney: let me explain

what the medical loss ratio is. that what what people in insurance companies call providing health care for what they provide. if the medical loss ratio is the amount of your dollar they spend on health care versus c.e.o. salaries, stock dividends that are out of control, lobbyist costs that they might incur, advertising and so on down the line. the purpose of the medical loss ratio provision is to make sure that they spend a higher percentage of their premium dollar on actual health care. in 1993, the average used to be about 95 cents of every dollar would be spent by private health care -- health insurance companies on health services. now, however, recent studies indicate that some private insurance companies are spending as little as 60 cents of every health care dollar on actual health services and the rest of lobbyist, probably some of whom are down here arguing to kill this provision, on high

c.e.o. salaries and bonuses, advertisement, so on down the line. the m.l.r., in this bill says an insurance, small company plans has to spend at least 80 cents of every premium dollar on health care. if you're in a large company plan, 85 cents. what a novel idea. you get some bang for your buck and the government would do something for you for a change, protecting consumer rights and making sure that companies do what they should be doing. this isn't about profits. the companies are extremely profitable. this is not going to cramp their style. this is about greed. the profits of the largest for-profit insurance companies in this country show a whopping $9 billion in 2010, it's up 20% from 2009. it's them avoiding having to pay premium dollars for health care. another provision is they're going to have to tell the

american public, be transparent in what it is they determine is health services, so people know if they're trying to put lobbyists' fees under health services or things of that nature. i don't think they have any will at all to make sure people understand where their health care premium dollars are going. if you don't have a law like this, you take power away from the consumer and put it with the insurance companies. they raise the premiums or cut health care. take away health care for people who want to get on their parents' plan up to age 26 if they're working in a company that doesn't have coverage or don't have coverage otherwise. they put on caps annually or lifetime caps so you can't get coverage. they rescind your policy, complake while you're in the middle of your cancer or diabetes care or make sure in some other way you don't get the coverage you ought to have. wendell potter, a whistleblower, used to be with cigna, made it clear when he

testified before committees that in fact this is what companies want to do, they want to keep the medical loss ratio in place where they benefit an the consumer loses. the chair: the gentleman's time has expyred. the wrelt from georgia. mr. price: how much time remains on each side in the chair: the gentleman from georgia has 2 1/2 minutes, two minutes for the gentlelady from connecticut. mr. price: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to an excellent member of our conference, new member, a member of the healing profession, nurse from north carolina, renee ellmers. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. ellmers: thank you, mr. chairman. let's be reminded why we are here today. we are here because leadership of the 111th congress couldn't even pass a budget. however, my colleagues across the aisle did manage to pass this monstrosity with a closed rule and no debate.

this, my friends, is obamacare. no one had time to read it, much less understand how it would actually affect small businesses. as a nurse and small business owner, i can tell you that this bill is devastating to health care and the economy. calling a government takeover of 1/ of the economy reform over and over and over again does not make it so. not only should we cast this amendment -- should we pass this amendment, we should pass this c.r. is so we can save the american tax payers from funding this outrageously bad bill. then we can get to work providing real health care reform. that give the decisions back to the doctors, nurses, and patients.

not washington bureaucrats. thank you, i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from connecticut. ms. delauro: i would like to remind the gentlelady, i understand she was not here but we did debate health care in this body for approximately 18 months. so there was a very healthy and robust discussion about health care. i would just say for a moment that this amendment is a demonstration a further demonstration of the majority's special interest priorities as it has to do with insurance companies. iles -- it also real idemonstrates the hypocrisy on job creation and deficit -- deficit reduction as well. what is the remainer of our time? the chair: the gentlelady from connecticut has one and a half minutes. ms. the lauro: i yield the balance of our time to mr. pallone of new jersey. the chair: the gentleman from snunle recognize nerd balance of the time. mr. pallone: thank you. i want to follow up on what the gentlewoman from connecticut said.

this is about whose side are you on? if you're with the gentleman from georgia, you're on the side of the big insurance companies, an you want to make sure they make bigger profits they get bigger bonus they pass out bigger dividends and more money to their c.e.o.'s. or if you're against this amendment and want to go with the health care reform bill we have, you're with the little guy. with the consumer. with the average american. because right now, the law says that consumers have to receive more value for their premium dollar. insurance companies are required to spend 80% to 85% of premium collars on medical care and health care quality improvements rather than on the bonuses and salaries the dividends for the c.e.o.'s and stock holers. that's what this is all about. you're going to hand control over what happens with the money that you paid in your premium back to the insurance companies so they can do whatever they want with it and make whatever profit they want. i think it's wrong. one of the major issues that we face this year is affordability and what consumers are getting

for their buck, so to speak. what we did is we made with the health care reform health insurance more affordable and it will become more so as this kicks in further. at the same time, you have to make sure when you spend your premium, you get something back. you get good value and good benefit. that's what we're doing with the health care reform. we're not worried about the insurance companies and whether they get enough profit. they make enough profit. i'm going to give you some examples. let's use aetna. between 2009 and 2010, profits went up 40%. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pallone: i could say that about every insurance companies. the chair: the gentleman from fwea. mr. price: how much time remains. the chair: the gentleman has 30 seconds. mr. price: we've heard this is about whose side are you on and it's about greed, it's really about who decides. the other side wants the government to decide what kind

of with health care you qualify for. on this side of the aisle we want patients to decide. patients and families and doctors. that's what this amendment is all about of support the amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from fwea. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. to ms. delauro: i request a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from kale rise? >> mr. chairman, i ask to take up amendment 296. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 296

printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mcclintock of california. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house on february 17, 2011, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. chairman, i yield myself 90 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 90 seconds. mr. mcclintock: on tuesday, the propings committee leadership supported my amendment 227 to cancel money that would be used to destroy dams that are generating the cleanest, cheapest electricity on the planet. this is the companion measure that forebids the bureau to redirect funds for this purpose. congress never authorized this stud question. congress never authorized the settlement.

the bureau of reclamations is moving forward with it anyway. at a time when skyrocketing electricity prices threaten our economy and the accuse shortages threaten our deprid, destroying $155ing me watts of clean, cheap hydroelectric electricity is insane. we're told it's to protect the salmon but it also destroys a hatchery that houses thousands of salmon each year. the language in this amendment is essential to limit what was proposed on suze. tissue on tuesday. i ask that the house adopt the implementing language. . the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 90 seconds. mr. herger: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection.

mr. herger: as a staunch supporter of dams, i understand my colleague's position on this issue and i support this amendment. the constituents i represent overwhelmingly oppose removing functioning hydro power and its associated benefits. i fully share that concern and the disturbing precedent it sets. i think it represents a monumental failure that current federal laws and regulations provide no alternative that will allow these dams to be operated as cost effectively as they were doing the previous license term or allow the federal government to fully meet the obligations it made to the klamath basin agriculture with the development of the klamath reclamation project. as such, this amendment by itself will, unfortunately, not address the underlying issue.

the environmental extortion that impacts property owners across the west and the hard working people who depend on the land for their livelihood. our laws are grossly out of balance and i look forward to working with chairman hastings and chairman mclynn tock on the necessary re-- mcclintock on the necessary reforms on this continued abuse and bring greater certainty to the klamath basin's agricultural community. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcclintock: i yield 90 seconds to the the gentleman from oregon, mr. walden. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. mr. pastor: i'm claiming time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized.

mr. pastor: i rise in opposition to the amendment. i just want to make a point. the gentleman is correct. the gentleman from california is correct. we did accept his amendment several days ago that dealt with the reduction of funds, i think it was $1.9 million. but it was not specific to this dam. it was specific to the account. and so this is a very different amendment and that's why we rise in opposition. and so i would like to yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. thompson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman for yielding. what we are hearing on the amendment is a switch from what we have been hearing over the past couple of days. and i say that because this amendment is a washington, d.c.,

solution to a very, very local issue. this amendment would stop a comprehensive local solution to a major and very costly problem in the klamath river basin. this effort at the local level supported by farmers and ranchers, fishermen, conser vacation groups, the privately-owned company in question, tribes as well as the states of california and oregon and it has a very bipartisan root. it was negotiated under both the bush administration and the obama administration. it's a study. it does not, nor is it an agreement to remove any dams. all the local communities in the klamath basin, even those who are opposed to dam removal, support the completion of the study and they're at the table working on this specific issue. even the california farm bureau is in support of completing this

study and needs to be noted that only congress can authorize dam removal. this amendment is not wanted by any of the stake holders, agriculture, conservation, local government, the dam owners, sports men and women, nor the tribes. and it will exacerbate the already serious problems we face in the klamath basin watershed. i ask my colleagues to join me in voting against this bad amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: i yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from oregon, mr. walden. mr. walden: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. walden: the farmers and families of the klamath basin suffered harm when two government agencies with conflicting demands and questionable data shut off water for irrigated agriculture threatening the way of life in

the region. it turned into dust and wildlife refuge dried up and families who tilled the crops lost everything and filed for bankruptcy. the stress was too much for some, one died of a heart attack and another took his own life. out of that, the house resources committee chaired by jim hansen of utah went to work with me trying to find short-term solutions. principles in the basin as you heard found common ground where they had been apart and they reached agreement that they have brought forth. it's clear to me the agreements at written do not have the support those in charge of the resources committee today. the gentleman from california and the gentleman from washington have made that clear. little point in spending more of the taxpayers' money especially during these dire fiscal times in an effort that will move forward.

i will support the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the house's decision will not lessen the threat to irrigated in the klamath basin or provide protection to rate pairs. it does mean the burden of finding a timely and affecttive solution to the conflicts in the pacin now resides in the resources committee and those who rejected these plans because the problems remain and conflicts grow and the courts call all the shots. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: i would like to yield a minute to the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader. mr. schrader: i would like to agree with the comments. i was a legislator in charge of the process in the home state of oregon. for the 10, 12 years i was in

the state legislature, this warfare over the use of the water resources was a hot topic. as a result, the state and federal government were spending millions of dollars in lawsuits. this agreement, this agreement to have a study to bury that hatchets and come to agreement is absolutely critical. we have tribes, ranchers, farmers, local officials have all come together to say let's solve this problem together at the regional level. we in washington, d.c., should not be getting involved. this is a long fought battle and should let it happen and stay out of oregon and california's business. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: does the gentleman have any other speakers in opposition? mr. pastor: who has the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from arizona -- no.

the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: i reserve and i do not have further speakers. mr. mcclintock: the gentleman from arizona is disingenuous when he says we didn't know this was about the klamath when we adopted the funding on tuesday. that was the context of the debate. i mentioned it over again and this isn't a surprise if the gentleman was listening. as to the claim that this is an agreement that has been agreed to by all of the political insiders in the area, let me assure the gentleman from california that it is opposed by the overwhelming majority of voters as tested in several elections, including the formal opposition to the dam removal by the board of superviseors elected by the people of the region. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: i did understand, because even though i heard the words, the understanding i had

with the chairman of the subcommittee and the reason we supported it was that the reduction of funds was to the account, not the specific project. so i did listen. i did understand. and -- but today, we are talking about prohibiting money for the study. and i have to tell you that this agreement is to study the potential removal of four privately owned dams, not the agreement to remove dams. and it's designed to bring about significant improvements to both environmental conditions and water supplies which need to be confirmed through the study. the studies are scientific and they deal with engineering and economic and environmental analysis to determine where the promise of the agreement will occur. and for that reason, we oppose this amendment. and i yield back the balance of

my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: i just want to say to the gentleman, the oregon public utility commission has ruled that from the standpoint of the rate paying public, the settlement agreement is preferable to relicensing under the federal energy regulatory commission known as ferc as the agreement caps rate pair costs at 200 million whereas fish passage costs because these dams are old, could exceed $500 million, plus an additional $200 million. the amendment would force these costs on the rate paying public without the benefit of accurate benefits and costs. being from the northwest, i want you to know that sometimes -- and they are just studying this

dam removal, but sometimes taking out dams, you can restore the original habitat and help the salmon recovery, as we are doing on the dam project up in washington state. and the reason we did it is because it was going to cost so much to fix up the dam that it was actually cheaper to take them out and this became a major restoration project. i wouldn't just assume that this is a positive thing. so i yield one minute to the gentleman from oregon. i can't yield one minute. i yield to the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and he is absolutely correct. what is being dealt with in the klamath river basin is an unraveling of a serious problem because the federal government has promised more than mother nature can deliver. and part of what is being considered and it is being

supported broadly by native americans. there are business interests. we have been working with utilities. a broad range of people in the community, and this is something that seriously needs to be studied and done right. there is a very strong likelihood that if it isn't done properly there may well be something that happens in the klamath river basin where circumstances move ahead and not done in a way that i think most people would like. i appreciate the gentleman -- mr. dicks: and being from oregon you realize it would do a lot for salmon restoration. mr. blumenauer: tremendous opportunity for the klamath river basin and tremendous opportunity for the native americans, for agriculture, for sports people. and to avoid the litigation and the political squirrel cage that we are in. and if you go down there and visit it, you find, as i know my good friend from california has, it's a tremendous opportunity and this amendment is really --

would be a mistake. mr. dicks: thank you, my friend. reclaiming my time, i yield to the gentleman from california to respond. mr. thompson: i thank the gentleman and i want to agree with you, mr. dicks, on the salmon implications of this and mr. walden who talked about the agricultural implications of not having a slougs. this has been an absolute mess for -- solution. this has been an absolute mess for decades and we have seen the fruits of that disaster bear out. the salmon industry crashing and agricultural problems that we have. and for the first time in decades -- first time ever, we have had all the stake holders come together. these are people who you couldn't get in the same town with before who are sitting around the same table. they're working out solutions. they have come to some agreements and this study has to be made. and mr. dicks, you are absolutely right. .

mr. dicks: you would think the gentleman would be interested in having the local community come together on this instead of imposing it from washington, d.c. and overturning it on what this local group of people have been working at over the years. this is really a bit much. i yield back the balance of my time and call for a vote. the chair: jats. fourpped gentleman rise? >> i believe i can yield the gentleman some time. mr. free free: i strike strike and yield him some time. the chair: the jad 5. >> i just simply want to sbrs gentleman is correct. mr. mcclintock: the local people should decide that issue and they have in one local election over another.

155,000 recent dents. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? mr. mcclintock: in a moment. the board of supervisors has taken a very strong stand to the opposition to the removal of the dams. and to the gentleman from california, i, too, am concerned about the salmon and why the iron gate fish hatchery is producing five million salmon a year, 17,000 of which we turn as fully grown salmon to spawn is so critical and why they would want to tear that out along with the dams is absolutely beyond me and beyond the people of the region who have voted repeatedly on this issue. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield? mr. mcclintock: i will yield back. mr. thompson: we wanted to wrap this up. mr. frelinghuysen: i feel the

gentleman deserves some extra time. i don't think we need to prolong this. mr. thompson: if the gentleman would yield i would clear up one fact. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield. mr. thompson: i want to clear up an issue, and that's the cost of energy as a result of this. if this isn't solved, the dam owners, the private owners that are supporting this study will have to make repairs to the dam that far exceed other costs and will drive the ratepayers' utility rates up through the roof. that's why the statement was made about those cost of utilities and the cost to the ratepayers. mr. dicks: will the gentleman yield for a second? mr. frelinghuysen: yes. mr. dicks: that's the point. it will cost more to fix the dams up. that's another problem we faced. even though the dams were there, the costs were so high to fix them up it was better to

take them out. this study will just look at this and the local people will wind up getting hurt if you force them to have to do this. and so let the local people decide this. and let this study go forward. it's a very inexpensive thing and this community has worked hard and deserves a chance to look at this. mr. mr. mcclintock: i yield my time. number one, the traditional costs are being forced on those private dam operators by the government. it is about time that we recognize that it is the government imposing these regulations that's driving up these costs and i would remind him, he also forgets the enormous replacement costs, the power coming off of those dams is the cheapest and cleanest on the planet to replace that power is going to cost many, many times the costs currently

borne by the ratepayers for the cheap hydroelectricity those dams produce and i thank the gentleman for yielding me that time. mr. frelinghuysen: and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. frelinghuysen: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?

for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. mcdermott: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 99 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. mcdermott of washington. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house on february 17, 2011, the gentleman from washington, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i'm a big fan of n.o.a., the scientists and analysts at n.o.a. do extraordinary work for this country. unfortunately, n.o.a.'s process for choosing a location for the marine operation center jeopardizes the operation of

the pacific center and is waste of tens of millions of taxpayer money. my amendment would save at least $5 billion immediately and beyond that, probably $10 million to $20 million in long-term costs. it would defund the move of the marine operation center from seattle to newport, oregon, for the rest of the year so that there is time for the broken process to be looked into. now, this is not a case of sour grapes. if it is what is best for the country, i wouldn't fight tooth and nail of jobs moving from one place to another. but the commerce department's inspector general, and the government accountability office has written scathing reports about this move and the decision process. they found it as among the worst run, least transparent, and least competitive bidding processes they have ever investigated.

if you want to compare it to the bridge to nowhere, this is exactly what it is. if i came from chicago and when we looked at something like this, we would always say the fix was in. spending tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to dislocate hundreds of families to a site frequently unavailable for navigation because of dangerous condition is not near shipyards or maritime suppliers is more than 120 miles from the nearest airport and will be hugely expensive to rub every year -- run every year makes no common sense and the reports of the inspector general report that very clearly. newport is an environmentally sensitive area and n.o.a.'s own private consultants say the site is the least qualified destination for the move. despite all these issues, n.o.a. has charged ahead and

been completely unaccountable. n.o.a. officials are not willing to admit their huge mistake and fix it. this is just plain wrong. taking a breather for the next seven months while we get a truly transparent process is the right thing to do. n.o.a. and newport are saying any delay, any examination, any looking at this will have catastrophic consequences. that simply is not true. we have studies from the c.r.s. and others. it won't put contracts at risk, it will not increase costs. i rise today to stop the process for the remainder of the year to give n.o.a. and the commerce department time to get their ducks in a row, hit the restart button and stop wasting taxpayer money. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the g.a.o. report, the commerce department inspector general's report and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's request will be covered by general leave. the gentleman from oregon.

for what purpose? >> to claim time in op position. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition offered by my friend from washington. frankly, i'm not sure where he's gotten his facts. let's be clear up front, if this amendment was enacted, n.o.a. would face termination liabilities well in excess of the $5 million or $10 million but woulden an excess of $50 million and their ability to conduct activities in the pacific would be in serious jeopardy. n.o.a. would have neither the authority nor resources to contract for alternate arrangements, putting in jeopardy the fleet of ships that gather critical data for navigation charts in u.s. waters, survey fishery stocks and maintain instruments which support tsunami warnings, weather forecast and climate research. mr. schrader: let me say again for the record very clearly here, after n.o.a.'s current lease is up in june, if this amendment were to pass, n.o.a.

would have no authority, zero, legal or otherwise, to mobilize its specific fleet. it would be dead in the water. there's been a lot of talk about process. frankly, this process has been comprehensive, transparent and legitimate. my friends from washington state have made sure that's the case. after a rigorous competitive lease acquisition process that followed g.a.o. guidelines, n.o.a. was awarded a 20-year lease to newport for the relocation of its specific fleet in august of 2009 and it subsequently complied with the i.g. report that was referred to and met the guidelines. the facts are clear. n.o.a. made this decision based on merits, not politics. let's not have politics undo a good decision. newport was the superior choice for the taxpayers and the agent's mission in the pacific. it was the number one choice in cost, and it was the number one choice in technical merit. in fact, the facts are the annual lease of the newport facilities will cost the

federal government 50% less. 50% less than the three competing sites located in washington state. in fact, in 2006, the peer at lake union seattle facility was destroyed by fire ander in reinstructed by the host city. on the other hand the state of oregon and the local community spent millions of their own dollars with no federal support to construct new facilities in newport. newport is ahead of schedule and will be ready to hand over the keys to n.o.a. on may 1 when n.o.a.'s 20-year lease is set to commence. n.o.a. is contractually obligated to commence the 20-year lease in may of this year. the new facility at newport brings costs, offsets, and advantages that my good friend and colleague from washington conveniently omits. the closer proximity in transit time from the port to the ocean is dramatic. instead of eight hours from lake union, they can get to the ocean in 20 minutes. the new facility is right next

to the hatfield center, oregon state university for great research compatibility. and importantly, the relocation of n.o.a.'s pacific fleet represents a huge boost to a small rural oregon coastal community with a great fishing legend and tradition that will bring much-needed jobs and translate into significant economic benefits. this is a david versus goliath opportunity. over the past four days, colleagues, we've engaged in rigorous debate about the fiscal health of our country. for my colleagues that are serious about saving taxpayer dollars and reducing our deficit, you should join me in opposing the mcdermott amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: i have the right to close. the chair: the gentleman is correct. mr. mcdermott: i'm going to close. mr. schrader: i yield my time.

the chair: the gentleman has two minutes left. mr. dicks: another colleague from oregon who wanted to speak. could he just reserve his time by unanimous consent? mr. mcdermott: sure. the chair: the gentleman can ask unanimous consent to reclaim. mr. schrader: i ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time. the chair: without objection. mr. schrader: how much time do i have? the chair: a minute and a half. mr. schrader: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from oregon. the chair: the gentleman from oregon has 1 1/2 minutes. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as i appreciate his leadership. this is a process you have been stewarding, being a congressional partner, and i appreciate your referencing what has happened here dating back to august of 2009. this has been scrutinized. any time -- we're friendly rivals in the pacific northwest. and it's a rare, rare, rare,

rare occasion that any federal activity ever leaves the evergreen state and ends up in oregon. as my good friend, the ranking member of the appropriations committee can document, because working with senator magnuson, he helped vacuum functions in the state of oregon. . you can bet that this was fly-specked to the extreme. but the advantages are overwhelming, the proximity, the technical effort, the local investment has been amazing. so we've been pillarred on this, it's been under a microscope and we've reached the point now that is really past the point of no return. if this ill-advised but i'm sure well-intended amendment would be adopted by my friend from washington, the federal government would be on the hook for more money, it would be

disruptive for noaa and it would be a disservice to the people who played fair, who went all along the way, playing by the rules, making the case, i strongly urge rejection of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i have good friends and i know they have to defend their hometown as adequately as they want but let me read from the i.g.'s report. in our view the more fundamental problems pertaining to noaaa's process prior to the competitive lease process, a primary cause of these problems is grounded in the fact that noaa did not subject the project to a rigorous capital investment planning and oversight process. while the department has clear property policy, nombingsoombings -- noaa did not

follow it. noaa thus proceeded with requirements for its desired option of a consolidated facility based on justification and consideration of alternatives and on the face and without additional documentation are significantly lacking. noaa's financial analysis of the offers submitted in response to the solicitation did not assess the total cost of the government and noaa provided no evidence that it had thoroughly considered the operational and logistical implications of the relocation. now, that's not too rivals from one state and another, this is the inspector general of the commerce department going down and looking at the process. and the fact is that the c.r.s. report, dated 30 september, 2010, which i will submit for the record, says that the federal government can always

get out of -- it's able to terminate its contracts for convenience. the governmental interest is always higher than the commercial interest. so the federal government can get out of this, they say $50 million, it's not going to be $50 million because they still have the pier, they can do whatever they want with it, but they do not have a contract with the federal government for the next 20 years in a place that is very far away. noaa has been in seattle for 40 years. that's true. it was put there for a very good reason and it ought -- i don't care if it goes to oregon or where it goes, but there ought to be a transparent process. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i

ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. mcdermott: recorded vote, excuse me. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. herger: mr. chairman, i'm offering an amendment, number 177 in the congressional record. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 177 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. herger of california. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house on february 17, 2011, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. herger: mr. chairman, i'm offering this amendment after much frustration and a lack of responsiveness from the forest service to locally elected officials and the recreation community in the northern california and across the nation. for a couple of years now i and

northern california constituents i represent have tried many times to work with the forest service on the 2005 travel management rule. yet we have been completely ignored as the forest service presses ahead with route designations that in some cases will eliminate more than 90% of the previous access. locally elected officials are now at the point of considering litigation against the forest service to keep these federal lands open to recreation. it is disgraceful that local counties would have to spend viable public funding to preserve access to our own national forests. not only are our counties forced to defend themselves against well-funded environmental activists trying to turn every acre of federal land into some kind of sanctuary, but now also

against the very agency that is supposed to serve the public. for these reasons i believe it is necessary to impose a seven-month time-out on designating these routes. chairman simpson ultimately, we want a workable solution, and i hope to work with you and chairman hastings to ensure a more balanced implementation of the travel management rule. i hope that my colleagues can support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. >> mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman this amendment would stop a very careful planning process that determines what routes -- routes offroad vehicles can use through our national forests. mr. moran: now, over the past few decades we know that the

availability and capability of offroad vehicles has increased tremendously. that means more americans are enjoying access to and recreational opportunities on their national forests, but the resulting proliferation of random routes results in severe impacts. particularly on the quality of our water supply and the fiscal safety of national forest visitors. the national forests are spectacular lands. there are 193 million national forests acres all over this nation. often times we take them for granted. but we fail to realize that the national forests are the headwaters for much of our nation's surface waters. the clean, pure water produced in the national forests is a national treasure and the economic resource that supports industry and agriculture nationwide. in fact, half of the american west gets their drinking water from national forests while many rural communities it's 100%. the proliferation, though, of

random trails increases erosion and pollution into water sources with no possibility for mitigation by culverts or the other measures that would be available to land managers on designated routes. this amendment is poorly considered. the amendment would stop a reasonable, locally oriented planning process that has been going on for six years to allow recreational access to these lands, but to do so in a way that also protects the sustainable production of water, timber, wildlife and other natural resources. the forest service has been called upon to designate which motorized routes are appropriate in the eyes of inclusive groups of local community leaders, with particular consideration to visitor safety and the ability of forest service to comply with its other mandates. it's practically impossible to maintain trail conditions without designated routes or to

avoid accidents. to hikers, damaged equipment -- hikers and damaged equipment are even getting lost in the back country. route designation enables land managers to guide motorized users away from sensitive wildlife habitats at appropriate times joostary -- times of the year and helps to maintain equal herds. in summary, this planning process is local, driven by longstanding productive partnerships from local, state and federal agencies, indian tribes and a diverse array of commercial and noncommercial interests. halting this planning process would squander those investments and rebuke the sincere commitment it reflects on the part of so many citizens to protect their public lands. we should oppose this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. herger: i have to comment that really all we're doing is asking for a seven-month time-out so that our local officials, our local communities have not counseled, with they

have not been brought into the process and they have 90%, in many years, declared offbounds is not reasonable. at this time i'd like to yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 90 seconds. mr. mcclintock: i thank the gentleman. the gentleman from california's absolutely right. these travel management rules are highly exclusionary. they severely limit the public's access to the public's own land with devastating consequences for the local economies of every mountain town that's affected. a town superviser writes, quote, the roads within the national forests are used by thousands of residents and visitors for transportation and recreation. these activities generate revenue for our rural communities which are critical for their survival. this is not a small matter that the forest service now controls 193 million acres within our nation, a land area the size of texas. in recent years the forest services utterly reversed the

division of its -- the vision of its founder, quote, to protect the greatest amount of good -- provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people in the long run, end quote. instead, we can fund an increasingly elitist and exclusionary attitude that's illustrated by the draconian restrictions in the plan. it bears far more resemblance to the public's exclusion from the royal forests under king jonathan to an agency that is supposed to encourage, welcome, facilitate and maximize the people's use of our national forests. these amendments restore the inclusionary vision of gifford by restoring the public's access to the public's land. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. moran: mr. chairman, could i inquire how much time i have left? the chair: the gentleman from virginia has two minutes. mr. moran: two minutes. i would yield those two minutes to the distinguished gentleman

from massachusetts. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. markey: i rise in opposition to the herger amendment. in 2001 the forest service finally admitted the obvious. the road system through our national forests is far larger than it should be. though the forest service can't tell us for sure, the best estimate is that the national forests are chriscrossed by more than -- crisscrossed by more than 380,000 miles of roads, that's eight times the length of the entire united states' interstate system. forest roads could wrap around the earth 15 times. from 1975 to 1985 the forest road system doubled. and that is just the authorized roads. it is estimated that there are an additional 60,000 miles of user-created, illegal roads through the forests, cut through sensitive areas just because it looked like fun.

the massive tangle of roads, fragments, the forest-destroying habitat, decreasing erosion -- increasing erosion and decreasing water quality, it gets worse each year as the budget falls further behind. real maintenance needs for this massive road system just don't happen. the current backlog is estimated to be $10 billion. and you want to know how we know? because it was the bush administration that finally announced in 2001 that a planning process for inventory of the road system, to figure out how many miles of roads are really needed, closing illegal roads and deciding to work on a more efficient system were needed. the herger amendment stops the bush administration planning in its tracks, just as it's about to be completed. and i just believe that the

members really should not take it upon themselves to end this seven-year process that is going to finally bring some audit to the forest service. i urge a no vote on the herger amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. herger: again, we're not saying we shouldn't look at this. we shouldn't examine it. we shouldn't have regulations. we should. those of us who live in these areas, we care about the environment more than anyone does. that's not the question. the question is that since the forest service has not been consulting with local government, they have not been consulting with the local communities, we're asking for a seven-month time-out so that they can consult with us and then we continue to come up with a plan where we work together,

not have, again, an all-powerful government in washington dictating and preventing those locals from being age to enjoy our own -- from being able to enjoy our own recreation and natural forests. i urge a aye vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. mr. herger: i request a recording of the yeas and nays, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. . the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. blumenauer: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 323

, printed in the congressional record offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 17, 2011, the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer, and a member opposed each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: we need to address agricultural subsidies. even in time of record profits we still gave $16 million in subsidies last year. there are no meaningful limits. they're doubled if you're married, they don't cover loan deficiency payments or marketing loans. this amendment would establish a hard limit of $250,000 per entity. in 2009, almost 1,500 entities got $250,000 or more. something called fidelity

national insurance titles, probably not a family farm, raked in more than $4 million in 2009. for the past 15 years, riceland foods in arkansas has collected a half billion dollars from the taxpayers. i strongly urge that you join with me, taxpayers for common sense, the environmental working group, humane u.s.a., a wide variety of groups and organizations to establish this limit, save $100 million this year and more in the future and start us on a path of reform that we can realize in the upcoming farm bill. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from oregon reserves his time. the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: i rise in opposition to it. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kingston: i recognize myself for one minute. and mr. chairman, what i wanted to say about this and to my friend from oregon is i believe we should put farm subsidies on the table.

and that's why in this bill we have included to cut the very popular agriculture red state programs, rural development, the farm services agencies, and the nrcs, all kinds of conservation programs are cut in this. however, the number of traditional farm programs we are going to let the ag authorizing committee deal with because that's where they need to be dealt with. i want to say this, while i oppose the gentleman's apartment, i don't oppose you seeking reductions in subsidies. but we believe that this has to be dealt with in the farm bill, and i look forward to working with you and the chairman of the agriculture committee on that when it comes. and i reserve the balance of my time. for now. and i have two speakers. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: what is the time remaining? the chair: the gentleman from oregon has 3 1/2 remaining and the gentleman from georgia has

four. mr. blumenauer: mr. chairman, then, at that point i would yield one minute to the ranking agricultural appropriations member, a champion of agricultural reform and of agriculture, congressman farr. the chair: the gentleman from california. how much time? mr. blumenauer: one minute. mr. farr: thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you for yielding, mr. blur. -- mr. blumenauer. i rise reluctantly because mr. kingston and myself have a great deal of respect for how we ought to be managing the future of payments. but i also -- and i concur with his remarks. but i'm rising in favor of the amendment because i think we have to push the attention to how vital it is that we reform this program. and i don't think you get that attention without bringing this amendment to the floor and passing it. it's going to be hard to implement in the next remaining

months, as so many of the amendments we've adopted here in the last three days, but i do think it's worth the debate. how we focus on the rest of the year. and frankly, we ought not be paying entities in this country hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars because they didn't get the price they wanted at the market. i represent the biggest growing area and we don't get any of these payments, not a single farmer. these are just a few entities and it is wrong. we ought to adopt this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: mr. chairman, i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from texas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. >> i want to rise in opposition to the amendment. it is wrong-headed at this point in time as my colleague from georgia has said. the farm safety net is an integral series of compromises and changes from 2002-2008, the

folks went to in order to come to that agreement. mr. conway: to pull out one segment of that safety net in an ad hoc manner without any reference to what it might do in the overall program is wrong-headed. next year is the time to do this. we'll go through a rigorous debate across the section and the conservation folks will be able to weigh in and all segments of the farm safety net will be represented at the table under the leadership of chairman lucas. that is the time to do this. we have the opportunities to do this work thoughtfully and there will be trades and compromises that will have to be made because in all likelihood we will have less money under the farm bill than we had in 2008, as an aside if we can go back to 2008 levels, i'm sure most of our agriculture guys would love to do that since that's the mantra of the republican house, we'll go back to the 2008 levels and do that, throw us in the briar patch. but doing it on an ad hoc basis and changing it in this manner

is wrong-headed and i oppose it and yield badge. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: you have another speaker? mr. kingston: i have one more speaker, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: i would like to recognize, if i can, my friend and colleague, congressman kind, who has been a tireless champion of graurl reform, coming as he does from farm country in the upper midwest. the chair: how much time do you yield? mr. blumenauer: 1 1/2 minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. kind: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. kind: thank you, mr. chairman. and to my good friend of texas, i hear what you're saying but i've been around here long enough to realize the next one never comes. the next bill never happens. and i commend him for offering this amended to begin this process now.

earlier today i offered a very straightforward amendment that would end a new american taxpayer subsidy program of the tune of $150 million a year that is now going to brazilian cotton agribusinesses and was defeated on the floor. it just shows you what we have gotten into with these outdated farm programs and the institutional interests and the special interests that maintain the status quo. these large taxpayer subsidies going to a few but very large agribusinesses has got to end. it's not fiscally responsible. it's not responsible to the american taxpayer. they are not helping family farmers throughout the country. they're driving up land prices leading to greater consolidation and production in the agriculture and making it very difficult for new beginning farmers to enter the occupation. and with the state of wisconsin where the average farmer's age is 58 years old, that's a serious topic of a new generation taking over these farm operations and this is difficult. i under it.

there are built-in special interests fighting reform and maintaining the status quo. but this also has to be on the table when it comes to serious budget deficit reduction. it is distorting the marketplace and distorting trade policy and there will be more w.t.o. challenges successfully against our farm programs unless we have the snule rule owe -- institutional rule to change it. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: i yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kingston: number one, we've shown in this bill we understand our mandate is to reduce spending. we are going to take on ag subsidies. smm two, we've seen this in this bill with rural development, the farm services agency, the national resources conservation service. and finally, we talk about next year, this is last year we're debating. we are debating the year in which planning decisions have already been made. this is last year's budget

we're still working on. that's why we can't do this in mid season. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: who has the right to close on this amendment? mr. kingston: day. the chair: the gentleman from georgia has the right to close. mr. kingston: i have one more speaker and we'll close with him and i believe i have two minutes left. the chair: that's correct. the gentleman from georgia has two minutes remaining. mr. blumenauer: i've listened to the language about the farm safety net. we're keeping -- there is a massive farm safety net in place. we're just reducing the safety net to a 1/4 million dollars a year. my friend, mr. kind, is absolutely right. tomorrow never comes here. i've been on the floor of the house when the house instructed the confer ees to accept this limit and we were rolled by the ag committee and ignored. this is an opportunity for us to not deal with the savings that you're taking away from

nutrition and from the environmental titles. talk about the safety net. what about your cuts to w.i.c.? for heaven's sakes, $100 million, savings to the taxpayer get started on reform now and join in a bipartisan effort. i've been pleased to work with congressman flake, congressman kind, congressman ryan year after year we have brought these issues to the floor and been rolled. now is the time to start adopting it and changing. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: i thank the gentleman. this bill cut -- the ag section cuts $5.2 billion, $3 billion to $4 billion come straight from production agriculture, not from school nutrition and other sensitive programs and i yield my time to the chairman of the agriculture committee from oklahoma. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for 1:45. >> thank you.

i rise in opposition to this amendment. why are we making policy decisions in an appropriations bill? this amendment changes current law. this is a decision that needs to be made in the context of the next new farm bill. we'll consider the farm bill next year in an open and transparent manner. we have a committee process that can review the paris of any proposal and all proposal and they'll be debated and considered and allowed for the members to offer their opinions and cast their votes. mr. lucas: in fact, if you look at the 2008 farm bill under chairman peterson's leadership, we made significant reforms, yes, cuts in the areas lowering the overall payment cap significantly. but i guess the opponents of farm programs will not be satisfied with that until every last marketing tool has been eliminated. i know it's a popular parlor game in some circles to see how far you can jerk farmers around but making these changes midstream in a five-year farm bill is disruptive to market decisions that producers have

made in some cases years ago. all farmers and ranchers want certainty. they plan to work under current law. plain and simple, the author of this amendment wants to change agricultural policy and this debate does not belong in this bill. and i would remind my friends, we today, this week, are a part of a bold, new, open legislative process. maybe that's not how you did it in the past, but when we do this farm bill, it will be done in committee and on the floor in the same open way we're doing this. let the process run its course. let us work our way through this open process when it should be done, in the next farm bill next year. is that so much to ask? is that so much to ask? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oregon. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair the nose -- the noes have it. the gentleman from oregon. mr. blumenauer: on that i request the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman request a recorded vote? mr. blumenauer: a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the amendment offered by mr. blumenauer of oregon will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> i have an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 408 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. clyburn of south carolina. the chair: mr. clyburn and a member opposed each will control five minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order. the chair: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. clyburn: thank you very much. mr. chairman, this is a very important amendment, and i call it the 10-20-30 amendment.

it deals with what we call persistent poverty counters, those in america who experience a poverty rate for 20% for the last 30 years. my amendment required that at least 10% of the funds in certain accounts be directed to counties with 20% or more of their citizens have languished below the federal poverty level for the past 30 years. . mr. chairman, approximately 15% of all counties in america qualify as persistent poverty counties. these counties are diverse and are spread across the country. including communities in kentucky and west virginia, native american communities in south dakota and alaska, latino

communities in arizona and new mexico, african-american communities in north and south carolina. they are urban communities in philadelphia, new york, baltimore and st. louis. democrats represent 149 of these counties with a total population of 8.7 million. republicans represent 311 of these counties with a total population of 8.3 million. 14 of these counties with a total population of 5.3 million are split between democrats and republicans. a total of 43 democrats and 84 republicans represent all or a part of these counties. and 35 of our 50 states have at

least one persistent poverty county. 15 of south carolina's 46 counties qualify for thising noble recognition. -- for this ignoble recognition and i happen to represent seven of those counties. this is not a red state or a blue state issue. that's why in this map, on this map beside me, the persistent poverty counties are colored in purple. there is no political affiliation for poverty. poverty has never been limited to race, region or cede. -- creed. these counties do not have the resources to hire sophisticated high-powered grants writers and lobbyists to help compete for the finite amount of dollars that should be available to them.

in today's "new york times" there is a front page story which i would ask everybody to read. it's entitled, "for much of rural america broadband is a dividing line." mr. chairman, i was particularly struck by the words of mrs. sharon jones, a small logging company owner in coffeyville, alabama. le listen to her words. we are trying to pull ourselves into the 21st century. mrs. jones says, i don't think the rest of the world understands there is a piece of the world here that is really challenged. her business, her customers and her neighbors are the reasons we included the 102030 amendment in the recovery act and it is

working well. the formula allowed many persistent poverty counties to benefit from the recover yo act and they do not otherwise receive -- recovery act and they do not otherwise receive funds. projects like these are crucial to meeting the basic needs of the community and laying the groundwork for future success. this amendment builds on that success and i hope to work with my republican colleagues to have it included in the final version of h.r. 1. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does the gentleman from new jersey insist on his point of order? >> i do, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman will state his point of order. does the gentleman wish to yield? does the gentleman continue to reserve? mr. frelinghuysen: yes, i do, thank you, mr. chairman.

the chair: for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri seek recognition? do you seek time in opposition to the amendment? mrs. emerson: no, actually, i would just like to make a comment and until i ask for time . oh, -- could we take unanimous consent for the gentleman from to get back some of his time, please? >> may i yield the balance of my time, too. the chair: the gentlelady's time had expired. mrs. emerson: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. mrs. emerson: thank you, mr. chair. i just wanted to make one comment and i wanted to thank mr. clybrurn for raising this issue and wanted to thank mr. rehberg for agreeing to work him . out of the 28 counties i represent in southern missouri, 14 of those 28 are persistent poverty counties and the gentleman's absolutely correct when he says that for a lot of those communities it is very,

very difficult to find the means by which you can get people to help write grants for you, for example, and other things. so i think this is an important issue on which we can all work together and i look -- i'm so pleased, mr. clyburn -- i'm so pleased mr. clyburn raised it and i want to thank mr. rehberg for his generosity in working with us. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitute legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states the amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law, imposes additional duties and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of order? seeing none, the chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting direction.

the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 566 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. boren of oklahoma. the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. boren, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. boren: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer this bipartisan amendment with congressman rehberg of montana. my colleague and a fellow member of the house second amendment task force. i am proud to report that two important groups have endorsed this amendment. the national riffle association and the national shooting sports foundation. our amendment would prohibit

batf from using any funds in this act to collect information from federally licensed firearms retailers about multiple rifle sales. last december a.t.f. published an emergency request in the federal register. it asked the office of management and budget for the power to collect information from firearms retailers on all sales of two or more semi-automatic rifles within five consecutive business days. this would include many of today's most popular rifles used by millions of americans for self-defense, hunting and other lawful purposes. a.t.f. officials have said this information collection would apply only to licensed firearms retailers in certain states. texas, new mexico, arizona and california. however, a.t.f.'s request published in the federal register does not mention a geographic limitation. this means we have to take the

a.t.f. at its word. i have heard numerous concerns about this a.t.f. request from fellow oklahomans, including sportsmen, gun owners and responsible firearms retailers alike. mr. chairman, i strongly oppose granting a.t.f. this information collection authority for three reasons. first, it would subject responsible firearms salers who are often small business owners to burdensome require require -- reporting requirements. second, a.t.f. would catalog records on americans who purchase rifle, thereby compromising their privacy. and, finally, a.t.f. lacks legal authority to collect this information. the gun control act of 1968 requires federal firearms dealers to report multiple sales of handguns. what i'd like to do at this time is yield to my colleague and friend, mr. rehberg from montana, for any words that he may have. mr. rehberg: thank you, mr. boren. i thank the chairman for

allowing this opportunity. it's one of those situations where you'd like to believe the administration is not trying to creep into an area that is not their necessarily, you know, something that they would try to slip by anyone. but when you talk about gun control we get very serious about the constitution and the creeping of various rules and regulations in areas that congress has specifically stayed out of, didn't want us to be involved in. and so there's always that lingering thought in the back of your mind like, what's going on here? i don't tend to believe that i would be a scary individual but if i were living in one of those four states i would be in this category of having purchased two long rifles because i happened to buy a hunting rifle for myself and my son who was of age and for christmas i went out and bought two. it throws me into that category. i would like to think i'm not considered a gun runner for a mexican cartel or something like that.

but that's the effect of a regulation like this. and so i hope that we will seriously consider this not necessary. we took the action, they created a regulation on handguns. we understand that. but when it comes to a long rifle, we're talking hunting rifle, we're talking about other types of rifles that are out there. this doesn't really make sense. and so i really thank mr. boren for taking the lead on this amendment. it's really important to those of white house are active firearm users -- us who are active fire users and i want to yield back to mr. boren. mr. boren: i'd like to inquire as to how much time -- the chair: the gentleman from oklahoma has a minute and 15 seconds. mr. boren: i'd like to reserve the right to close. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek time in opposition to the sneamed >> yes, i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you very much. and i thank the gentleman from oklahoma and his colleague and my colleague from montana. let me say first and foremost that this was a request having

to do with the four states on the southwest border. mr. fattah: it would -- mr. payne: it would not have involved our great friend from montana in his purchase of a rifle. this was limited to long guns that would have detachble clips. if someone went to buy 1,000 ak-47 assault weapons, they would have to be reported. now, this reporting requirement already exists for handguns. it was a request made, o.m.b. denied it, wanted to get a serious of public comments. so there was no rush from the administration -- on the administration's behalf to rush this through under the color of some emergency order. it's been out for public comment. i think that it's a reasonable thing to think about, whether or not we want to have a

notification to our government that someone was buying large quantities of assault weapons, especially along the border which many, many of our colleagues have told us about being a place of significant danger related to organized crime to the south of our sovereign nation. mr. fattah: so this is a request that's been made, it's been met, however, with this amendment. and i think we all know the result of what might happen here in the house regarding this. i hope that we're prepared to live with the consequences of whatever vote wes might cast in this matter -- votes we might cast in this matter. this has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting rifles or guns used in sporting activity. this has to do with long guns with detachble clips used for only one purpose and that is shooting large numbers of rounds and killing large numbers of people. so we should be clear about it. it's a request that's been made, it's been noticed in the public

record for a comment by the administration. it relates only to these four states. it is modeled after regulation that already exists now for handguns. so i know that some may get paranoid about these issues but i think we should have at least some paranoia about what this could have if we don't take reasonable action to protect the citizens we've been elected to protect and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. boren: i continue to reserve and would ask if there are any additional speakers? mr. fattah: i don't want to prolong this. but i -- i will yield -- one minute to the young lady. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. now, remind that the gentleman from pennsylvania has the right to close. ms. chu: 30,000, that's how many people were violently

slaughtered by the mexican drug cartels in just four short years . one of them was bobby, an american citizen and rising star from my district. he was kidnapped and murdered last year with a semi-automatic rifle. i oppose this amendment because it makes it harder to stop these types of violent acts. this amendment will prevent the tracing of sales of military rifles popular with cartels that resulted in tragic murders like bobby's. last year the u.s. military announced that if the drug war continues, it will cause the mexican government to collapse and the cartel war would spread over the border into the u.s. this amendment makes the drug war worse. . every day people are dying from this war, even american citizens. we must stop it. we can by opposing this amendment. >> can i clarify how much time i have left? the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has 1 1/2 minutes

remaining and the gentleman from oklahoma has a minute and 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. chairman. i don't know if anybody has noticed what's gone on in mexico recently. the previous speaker just spoke of the drug wars that are going on. it's a known fact that much of the equipment that's used to carry on those wars comes from the united states. smuggled into mexico. this is a very sane and necessary attempt to slow down the availability of high caliber, high capacity automatic weapons that are smuggled into mexico. it makes no sense not to know what's going on because this is dramatically affecting the border states and american citizens who happen to be in

mexico. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks time? >> i have the right to close and reserve until that time. kenny: the gentleman from pennsylvania has the right to close. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. boren: in conclusion, this amendment is very simple. it prevents the a.t.f. from imposing burdensome rules and protects the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and ensures a.t.f. will not circumvent the will of congress. again, i remind my colleagues this amendment carries the full support of the national rifle association and the national shooting sports foundation. thank you, mr. chairman, i urge adoption and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania.

>> thank you. i thank my colleagues. 48 hours ago we had two officials of united states governments. mr. fattah: they were in an army vehicle traveling south of the border and attacked. one of those agents died and the assault weapons used in that incident, like tens of thousands of them that have found their way into mexico, have crossed the border through these legal purchases. this is about notification to the department of justice. it doesn't stop the sale, it notifies that large amounts of these guns have been purchased. i think it's a reasonable thing. i leave it to my colleagues to make a reasonable judgment about this amendment. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to.

>> i ask for a vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 145. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 145 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. forbes of virginia. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 17, the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, and a member opposed control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. forbes: mr. chairman, let me start off by saying this is an amendment that the congressional budget office has

said is cost mutual so we're not talking about revenue coming in or going out. second thing about this amendment is it's not dispositive and doesn't ultimately make a decision. the third thing is, this is an amendment supported not only by the chairman of the house armed services committee but by every single subcommittee chairman of the house armed services committee. so what does it do? it simply states before we turn out the lights on the men and women who without question have the most expertise and experience and the legal authority to assemble the teams to fight our wars and respond to our national emergencies, we're going to know who will replace them. any time this nation faces a crisis, there are two observations that always emerge. first, we realize how ineffective or government agencies are in assembling cross agency teams to respond to that crisis. and secondly, we realize how good our military is at putting those teams together. one of the reasons for our military success is that for

over a decade, whether we go to war to defend our homeland, the military does it as a team. they can bring together a coast guard cutter, army special ops units, marine expeditionary units, an air force squadron, reserve units and even when needed our allied partners in a combined response we call jointness. it is a competitive advantage for which no nation in the world can rival us. yet hard as it is to believe, an advantage we did not have 20 years ago. and one of the reasons we've had that advantage is that for over a decade, a single group had the legal authority to bring those teams together and that was the joint forces command. they've assembled the majority of our forces in iraq. a majority in afghanistan. they've had control of over 80% of our continental u.s. base combat ready conventional forces and sellabled our military teams -- and assembled our military teams for national

disasters. it was announced they would close to save money. when the pentagon briefers came they were asked one question, how much money will you save, and their answer was, not a clue. we don't have a clue. for days, weeks, months, members have been asking how much this is going to save and who's going to be able to put teams together when this command is gone. the pentagon's response has been deafening silent. it's not because they're bad people, it's just because they don't know the answer. this amendment, mr. chairman, simply says the answers to those questions are too important for us not to wait until september 30, which is all this amendment does, to give our committees and this body the chance to get the answers and to make sure we do not go back 20 years. if there's any member in this room who can answer even the most basic core question presented by this closure which is who will ultimately have the legal authority and expertise to put together the teams we

need to fight our wars and respond to our crisis so they can vote with good conscience against this amendment but you can't because nobody at the pentagon can answer that question either. mr. chairman, this nation deserves a better answer than we don't have a clue, and this amendment gives them a chance to find that answer. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from washington take the time in opposition? mr. dicks: yes, i request the time in op position. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dicks: and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. dicks: the amendment would prohibit the use of funds to take any action to disestablish the joint forces command. in f.y. 2010 secretary of defense gates recommended disestablishing the joint forces command and included this as part of his efficiencies initiatives in the fiscal year 2012 budget request. on january 6, 2011, president

obama issued an official memorandum accepting the recommendations of secretary gates and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, mike mullen, and approved the establishment of joint forces command. the department of defense expects to save at least $240 million annually by disestablishing the command. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff retains responsibility for promoting joint operations, essential functions, and the resources needed to perform these functions will be assigned to other organizations in hampton roads. and the navy support activity in norfolk, virginia. all told, d.o.d. estimates that about 50% of the current level of effort will remain in norfolk, virginia, area. and, you know, these are -- we've been through so many rounds of bracc, and i can sympathize with the gentleman

from virginia, and i understand his concerns about this. but, you know, your side is taking the position that we have to reduce spending on some of the most sensitive programs that we have in our government. i happen to have chaired the defense appropriations subcommittee just for a brief time and was a member of the committee for 32 years and now the ranking democratic member. and we went through this budget very carefully this year. mr. young and i did. and we came up with $15 billion of cuts. we have to give some respect to the secretary of defense who in fact was a republican and serving in this administration on his recommendations. and some of these things i know are painful when it affects your local community. i've had that problem over the years myself. but just like the alternate

engine, sometimes we have to make these hard decisions, and the secretary of defense, i think in this case deserves the benefit of the doubt. i think the virginia delegation is totally correct in asking for substantiation for what they're doing and why they're doing it. but joint forces command, primary -- i've been there and visitted there. the responsibility is to assign forces to various contingencies. and, you know, we only have so many forces, so if you look at all the plans there are, there's going to be this fleet, or this division or this going here or there or everywhere depending on what the scenario is. so i think the chairman, mike mullen, or whoever the chairman of the joint chiefs and the joint chiefs can do that just as well as having a separate command. and again, i say we have to make some hard decisions.

and we are cutting the heart out of the domestic programs of this country and defense has to give something up here, and this with i think if you look at the various commands, this one makes as much sense and the secretary of defense has made the decision and it's supported by the top members of the joint staff and for that reason i regretfully have to object and oppose the amendment. mr. forbes: mr. chairman, would the gentleman yield for questions. mr. dicks: of course. mr. forbes: i would ask all this amendment does is give us until september 30 to answer those questions. all the leases are in effect. they can't be changed until that period of time. so we're not talking about costs. this is the question i would ask the gentleman. you mentioned the joint chiefs of staff had the authority to be that joint provider and to allocate those troops. i would ask the gentleman if in fact they do have that authority because

goldwater-nichols and the act expressly prohibited them from being able to do that. i would ask the gentleman if it doesn't make sense, at least before we cut out the lights, regardless of the ultimate decision you make to make absolutely sure we know who's going to be able to have that authority before we make that final decision. mr. dicks: well, i appreciate the gentleman's point. you know, as i have been told, there's been an effort to try and keep 50% of the people and the activities in your area in virginia. and it's one of the most important defense areas the country has. so i think you guys are working hard and i think that the department is responding as best they can, but, again, i think we should reject the amendment and let this thing work out as the department has recommended. and i yield back my time. mr. forbes: mr. chairman, may i inquire how much time i have

left? the chair: the gentleman from virginia has 1 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. forbes: mr. chairman, i'd like to at this time yield 45 seconds to congressman whitman from virginia. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for 45 seconds. mr. whitman: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from virginia. mr. wittman: it would give them the authority to close the command, pure and simple and would allow us to determine how the closure would impact national security. in august it was announced by the pentagon that the jifcom would be dissolved. congress was not informed and asked multiple times for the analysis that was done to lead to the decision to close jifcom without getting that information. this leads me to believe a thundershowero analysis into the jifcom was never consulted. in five years the pentagon will be asking congress to set up a

mechanism to ensure jointness among our services. capabilities exist under jifcom that are paramount to our success in the current war the military is fighting. without that analysis we cannot know whether we're casting away years of joint experience that will be crucial to the future defense of this nation. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: mr. chairman, i'd like to yield the balance of my time to the congressman from the second district,. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> i rise in strong support. the establishment of a combative command requires congress. it says the closure of the command should involve thoughtful analysis shared with this body for comment. the closer of joint forces command fails on that account. . mr. chairman, the absence

of data is unacceptable. accordingly, this cost-neutral amendment delays its closure. i ask my colleagues to join me in voting of the forbes joint forces command amendment. i thank the gentleman and yield back. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. forbes: i have an amendment at the desk, amendment number 146. the clerk: amendment number 146 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. forbes of virginia. the chair: pursuant to the order of the house of february 17, 2011, mr. forbes will be recognized for five minutes. mr. forbes: the taxpayers have

entrusted the department of defense with $2.5 trillion and the law has required that the department of defense makes sure that they allow the taxpayers to know where the money is being spent by providing audited financial statements. yet in testimony before the house armed services committee, it was established recently that no such audited financial statements were filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010 and that none would be filed this year. mr. chairman, the secretary of defense testified that are compliance with the law was, in fact, a priority and that they had a plan at the department of defense. but when you put up the web site just two days ago from the department of defense, it showed very clearly that the plan that they had in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 says that they would have completely filed clean, audited

statements by 2010. they were only 100% off, because according to the testimony right now, the records at the department of defense are so bad that less than 5% of all of the monies given to the department of defense are in an audit-ready position. mr. chairman, we have heard draconian efforts to keep them in compliance. this is no such effort. what this does is we recognize to give $2 million that are basically party funds, they are funds for dinners, funds for entertainment, funds that have no impact directly on our war fighter. and what this amendment simply does is take away those funds, mr. chairman. and our thought is if we take away those funds until we have compliance with those audited financial statements that the taxpayers deserve, we will give a strong incentive to make sure we are compliant and not 100%

off. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. jarkt does the gentleman from washington seek time to claim time in opposition? mr. dicks: i rise in opposition to the amendment. this amendment would prohibit the department of defense from spending any fund, any, for official representation due to a lack of audittable financial statements. i completely agree with the gentleman on the point that we need to get them to do this. i just think that this approach is not the way to do it. if we want -- authorizers could set a time frame in statute, that's the way to do it without cutting out these funds when they are entertaining people from other countries and around the world. i just think it's one of those things, it sounds good, but going to have unintended consequences. audittable statements have been a goal of the department of

defense. the committee has pressed the department of defense to press for financial management and will continue that effort in the coming year. eliminating official representation funds is not connected to that goal and limiting these funds would have damaging consequences. the amendment would preclude its activities associated with hosting military-to-military contacts both domestically and scrofere seas. it extends to guests of the united states and department of defense and up holds the prestige and standing of the united states. the amendment would also harm the military service's ability to conduct community relation activities. the amendment hurts d.o.d.'s ability to represent itself to foreign nations and to the communities in which d.o.d. activities are located. and it does so with very little pay. the bill before the house cuts over $15 billion on a bipartisan basis from the defense

department budget on careful analysis of d.o.d. programs. the approach in this bill yields both a higher payback and does not have the drawback of unintended consequences. i urge rejection of the amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: i yield one minute to the distinguished the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: i rise to support the amendment and efforts to highlight the need for the department of defense to become audit ready. it was instructed to provide taxpayers statements. more than 20 years later and still talking about the same issue while our country faces a grave economic downturn. i understand the painfully difficult process that will go into auditing the largest enterprise on the earth. the american people made a clear

statement last november they are ready for the government to get its fiscal house in order. the department of defense cannot -- cannot continue to get a pass on this issue. this challenging goal will require buy-in from the top down. and we call on the secretary of dens to exercise fiscal responsibility. i will continue to press defense officials across the river to get their fiscal house in order and must not be having this conversation two decades from now. support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. . the gentleman from washington seek -- the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: mr. chairman -- mr. dicks: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from washington yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. forbes: my good friend mentioned we need to put

regulations or statutes to make the department of defense comply. we have done that. the law requires that they do it and failed to do it in 2007, 2008, 2009, 1020 and won't do it this year and won't admit they are a bit closer. we mentioned unintended consequences, there are none with this amendment. we intend the consequences. you have to stop the partying until you do what the taxpayers are entitled to have required by law and that is just account where the money is going. we can't determine how much is going to spend on defense unless we know where the dollars are going. i hope we adopt this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. dicks: i want a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6,

rule 18, proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i seek recognition to offer an amendment dealing with pilt. mr. dicks: number 333. the chair: clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 33 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. kaptur of ohio. the chair: the gentlelady from ohio, ms. kaptur and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from ohio. ms. kaptur: i want to show all

of the colored areas of arizona that are actually federal property, over half of the state. my amendment deals with pilt and federal payments to places like arizona which is on a continuing welfare system of government spending and has been for many, many decades. let me show you the state of ohio, where there are proposals that the community development block grant funds in the base bill are being cut. this is ohio. we don't have much federal property. we hardly have anything at all. we have to make it in the free market. and yet, what's happening in the bill is that more money is going to pay out for pilt than for places like i represent in the midwest where unemployment is so high. they are cutting community block grant dollars for cities and towns across this country to $2.95 billion and they are continuing these pilt payments

which are welfare payments to the west. if this congress is serious about cutting spending, we need to address some of the fundamental challenges contained in what i called mega marks. these aren't earmarks but mega marks that benefit certain parts of the country at the expense of others. these subsidies that have existed for generations and it's time that the west stood on its own two feet because these subsidies cannot be afforded by the other parts of the country that don't have that kind of presence. if we are going to have sacrifice in this legislation, it needs to be shared and reduce the payments in lieu of taxes called pilt by 75%. that's the administrative costs we are reducing. what's good for toledo, salt lake city and reno is really good for the western subsidized communities as well. pilt is mandatory spending like farm subsidies and outside our

annual appropriations bill. my amendment targets the administration of those funds. let me just put a couple of figures on the record and i would like to yield 1 1/2 minutes to mr. moran. for the pilt subsidies, the west has received over the last 10 years, let's look at arizona. arizona has gotten an increase from $10.3 million in 1999 to 31.6 million in 2009. idaho has gone up three times from $8.3 million to $26.4 million. nevada, from $7.1 million in excess of $23 million. new mexico, more than tripled, $11 million to $37 million and texas from $1.3 million to 4.3 mill cron. utah to $33 million.

and wyoming, which has fewer people than the district of columbia, which is going to lose funds under the community block grant program, 10 years ago, received $8 million annually and now wyoming will receive over $25 million. come now. come now. for empty property with the federal resource is already there. you can pivot so much off of that and do economic development off of tourism and use those lands to attract investors who would like to drill on those lands and do other things with those lands. you can attract economic development around what i would call federal encampment. you know how much my district gets for thousands of acres of federal wildlife refuges? $180. $180. compared to billions and billions and billions going out in these permanent pilt

subsidies ffment pilt doesn't look at what the west gets for oil and gas subsidies, timber harvesting. one of the reasons our taxpayers are feeling it so heavily is that are we really being lifted up and they don't even appreciate what they have. for my colleagues, if you want to send the american people a message that you are serious about cutting spending, the place is by cutting the administrative fees of pilt and i yield to the gentleman from virginia. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 minutes. mr. moran: more 1 1/2? . the chair: there is only 30 seconds left. mr. moran: this is a message amendment. we love our colleagues who represent the western states, but many of them, particularly